Prima Scriptura and Sola Scriptura?

BryanJohnMaloney said:

Let's not forget that Martin Luther wanted to eradicate the Epistle of James. So, the Big Daddy of "Sola Scriptura" was happy to just hack and chop at Scripture.

Click to expand...

Indeed. And the same Martin Luther was happy to add the word "alone" to one verse so it said " faith alone", because that is what he preferred scripture said!

Mountainmike said:

To pose your question "sola scriptura" vs "prima scriptura" it first needs deciding whether sola scriptura is actually possible, and as my answer contended, sola scriptura is not possible....

Click to expand...

That's a silly argument, frankly. Your church, my church, his church, the churches that almost all Christians belong to have asserted, along with the Christians of history, that the Bible is the revealed word of God.

Therefore, we know what we are speaking of when we say we believe in Scripture!!

It is just nonsense to argue that we don't know what material we are referring to when we say "Sola Scriptura."

..............................................................................

That settled, the topic here is Prima Scriptura vs. Sola Scriptura. Let's get back on topic.

Mountainmike said:

Indeed. And the same Martin Luther was happy to add the word "alone" to one verse so it said " faith alone"...

Click to expand...

Just as has been done with almost every other Bible translation and by all sorts of editors. I refer to using two or three words when translating what's one word in the sources. This is done so that the actual meaning of the original will be understood by the present-day reader.

The following goes into the subject in more detail but does give plenty of examples of what we are referring to. Take a look.

When Two Bible Translations Disagree, Which One Is Right? - LogosTalk

Albion said:

Perhaps you misunderstood the point. It was quite 'point blank' and did not even argue the point, although I considered the point to have been in error. The consequence of accepting it is that one necessarily, automatically, separates himself from orthodox Christianity which considers Holy Scripture to be the word of God/divine revelation.


I really don't think that's accurate. The overwhelming number of Christian people and church bodies accept the same 66 books of the Bible, as canonized in the fourth century. All that separates these churches are the Apocryphal books which are worthwhile to read for instruction in "morals and manners," as they say, but which establish no doctrines!

Click to expand...

The point is of wider significance. Why not include the protoevangelium of James? or Shepherd of Hermas? The consensus on scripture was as much about what was rejected as what was accepted. Nowhere does scripture give us that table of contents. Jesus certainly did not recite it! If the canon is inspired, so must be the table of contents: and that was certainly decided by people (therefore people under inspiration) . The earliest canons were rejected for therefore the same reason, why then was Marcions canon not accepted by the early church? . So what is included and excluded from scripture is part of what must be added to the scripture from outside to claim scripture is the word of God.

Whilst I agree we all in essence share the same Canon, how it came to be the Canon is relevant to the question of whether tradition is necessary. It clearly is, since the "table of contents" is tradition The faith handed down and a product of authority: men acting under inspiration.

One of the biggest questions fundamentalists must answer is why they accept the inspiration of those who chose the canon (consistent with their beliefs of the faith) whilst roundly disagreeing with what those same people believed the canon meant!. Many of the additional beliefs of those who produced the creed are in total opposition to many who recite it now!

Albion. Your answers are usually sharp, but not today.

My opposition to sola scriptura was not in the table of contents of scripture, but in wholesale differences in the meaning attributed to many of the verses.

There is little point in producing the list here: you and I would agree on the list of verses with contentious meanings, but not in some of the answers on meaning. We agree on some, disagree on others. We both disagree with many who think the eucharist is purely memorial. The fact we disagree on meaning shows scripture does not self stand. Indeed. If scripture was not contentious you would have no need of your articles, telling you what you must believe it means (and in some cases does not mean)!

We all must agree that scripture is only the word of God, when we attribute Gods intended meaning to it!. Till then it is just a list of words.

Albion said:

Just as has been done with almost every other Bible translation and by all sorts of editors. I refer to using two or three words when translating what's one word in the sources. This is done so that the actual meaning of the original will be understood by the present-day reader.

Click to expand...

Mountainmike said:

The point is of wider significance. Why not include the protoevangelium of James? or Shepherd of Hermas?

Click to expand...

The point was that we have the Bible. It is not something that Christians, whether Catholic or Protestant or Orthodox, are "on their own" to guess at.

But the latter concept or approach is what your comment is based upon.

That said, you or I could decide to select various writings, perhaps including the protoevangelium rather than excluding it, and proclaim that collection to be inspired writings, no matter what anyone else decides.

But as Christians, that issue has long been closed.

The church decided. The only way for any of us to go it alone is to deny the Bible as we know it. But if that were to be done, we wouldn't be talking about Sola Scriptura being authoritative--or not authoritative. That's because the term refers to the Bible, not to our own choice of sacred texts.

Mountainmike said:

Albion. Your answers are usually sharp, but not today.

My opposition to sola scriptura was not in the table of contents of scripture, but in wholesale differences in the meaning attributed to many of the verses.

Click to expand...

Very well, but saying that only takes us back around the same circle that this discussion has travelled many times before in which the Catholic posters say that there are different interpretations of Scripture made by different churches and individuals.

That argument completely misses the meaning of Sola Scriptura.

It's been said again and again here, but Sola Scriptura is a term that refers to the authority, the ultimate authority, of the Bible. Nothing else is its equal.

The term does NOT refer to or mean or imply that everybody is going to understand the contents of Scripture in the same way as everybody else does.

Is that a failing in Sola Scriptura? NO!

There is nothing else in life that that every person sees in the exact same way as every other person does. So also with Scripture.

BUT before anybody interprets the revelation which has been given to Man by God, it is necessary to identify what is to be examined! Sola Scriptura says that the Bible, being God's own revelation, is unmatched in its authority.

However the Holy Scriptures get interpreted, it is first necessary that we know what it is that we turn to for the answers!

How we may agree or disagree on our interpretations of passages in Scripture... that's a separate and secondary issue.

It is true, we do now.

But put yourself in the position of a second century christian.
How could that person know what was true? The answer tradition (faith handed down) and authority - succession telling him what it meant. He certainly did not have a new testament!

The closing of a canon does not obviate need for authority or tradition.
The old testament was closed, but still Jesus told all to listen to those speaking from authority of the chair of moses. "practice and observe what they teach". The faith handed down (tradition) and authority to interpret.

Indeed the very meaning of the words "bind and loose" given separately to Peter and jointly to apostles is giving definitive interpretation on matters of law and doctrine. That is what that phrase meant to first century Jews. Authority to resolve conflicts.

That power to bind and loose is why councils can be deemed to have authority. including the canon!

The Creed is tradition we all accept. That is the correct interpretation of scripture handed down from authority.

Albion said:

The point was that we have the Bible. It is not something that Christians, whether Catholic or Protestant or Orthodox, are "on their own" to guess at.

But the latter concept or approach is what your comment is based upon.

That said, you or I could decide to select various writings, perhaps including the protoevangelium rather than excluding it, and proclaim that collection to be inspired writings, no matter what anyone else decides.

But as Christians, that issue has long been closed.

The church decided. The only way for any of us to go it alone is to deny the Bible as we know it. But if that were to be done, we wouldn't be talking about Sola Scriptura being authoritative--or not authoritative. That's because the term refers to the Bible, not to our own choice of sacred texts.

Click to expand...

Mountainmike said:

There is simply no such thing as sola scriptura.

All view scripture, both what is classed as scripture, the translation of it, and the meaning of it through a lens of a tradition.

I could point easily at ten bible verses on which catholics and others profoundly disagree the meaning.
Without resorting to some other authority the meanings cannot be resolved.

Indeed, start with the most basic issue of all. The new testament as an entity did not exist for the early christians. Indeed the earliest canon (marcions ) was roundly rejected as heretical. Even if it had existed as a composite entity, very few could read , and even fewer could own a copy.

Indeed Jesus did not urge his disciples to write, he gave us disciples to "go out and teach all nations"

It is vital therefore to read the earliest writings, (for example those taught by John the apostle) - they tell us clearly (ignatius to smyrneans) that a eucharist is only valid if performed by a bishop in succession or his appointee. If John didnt know what chapter 6 means, who does?

So sola scriptura is nonsense, which betrays ignorance of history of the early church. How it passed faith, and what it believed.

If proof were needed it is easily found. Those who subscribe to sola scriptura all find it necessary to attach "articles" to define what they think scripture means!
Don't look now, but that destroys sola scriptura as a principle, since it admits it cannot stand without tradition.

The question then , is not that tradition is necessary (it clearly is) but what then was the faith that was handed down, that gave correct meaning to scripture?

Click to expand...

All view scripture, both what is classed as scripture, the translation of it, and the meaning of it through a lens of a tradition.

Click to expand...

Mark 7:8

Berean Study Bible
You have disregarded the commandment of God to keep the tradition of men.”

Mark 7:9
He went on to say, "You neatly set aside the commandment of God to maintain your own tradition.

Mark 7:13
Thus you nullify the word of God by the tradition you have handed down. And you do so in many such matters."

Colossians 2:8
See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, which are based on human tradition and the spiritual forces of the world rather than on Christ.

Isaiah 29:13
Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:

Jesus doesn't think much about some of the traditions of men (human tradition).

I know and understand much about the very long and complex history of the bible and there is also great knowledge outside of it .... however ... when outside knowledge conflicts with His written word ... then that's a different matter .... His Word is the supreme authority ... you and others believe otherwise ... so be it.

So the faith was handed on not by scripture but "paradosis" (the word now translated as tradition) which means handing down. And is why Paul urged his disciples to "stay true to tradition we taught you , by word of mouth and letter" (notice he did not say bible!)

Click to expand...

no offense but kind of a goofy statement (ie "did not say bible") .... well didn't say bible ... but did say this (more on this below) ... which is of course included in the bible. Tradition of the apostles ... and His written word tells us what those acceptable traditions are.

Jesus and the Apostles: studied, memorized, used, quoted, and read most often from the "Bible of their day", the Septuagint. Since Matthew wrote primarily to convince the Jews that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed their promised Messiah, it follows as a matter of course that his Gospel is saturated with the Hebrew Scriptures. Yet, when Jesus quotes the Old Testament in Matthew, He uses the Hebrew text only 10% of the time, but the Greek LXX translation—90% of the time.

Amazingly, Jesus and Paul used the LXX as their primary "Bible". It was just like the Bible each of us holds in our hands, not the original Hebrew Old Testament, but a translation of the Hebrew into Greek. But it was based on exactly the same original and inspired words, and reads just like the Bible we hold in our hands today.

Almost all of the Hebrew Bible is represented in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I could point easily at ten bible verses on which catholics and others profoundly disagree the meaning.

Click to expand...

of course ... many disagreements about scripture out there ... nothing new.

If proof were needed it is easily found. Those who subscribe to sola scriptura all find it necessary to attach "articles" to define what they think scripture means!

Click to expand...

like the catholic church doesn't do the same thing ???

no matter .... obviously many different beliefs ... each are responsible for what they believe and put forth what they believe ... I'm ok with that .. do sometimes use the hebrew or greek lexicons that often provide much clarification (definitions and use of the languages)

I believe His word was written for the common person (OT & NT) and with study and the leading from the Holy Spirt will comprehend it.

John 14:26

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

Agree to disagree my friend ... protestant verses catholic views/beliefs regarding scripture ... most know (basically) and understand through history why there are the two (if not they should research it all out extensively) ... everyone study and decide for themselves and keep discussing it ... intended ... He wants everyone studying His word for themselves.

Acts 17:11

Berean Study Bible
Now the Bereans were more noble-minded than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if these teachings were true.

2nd Timothy 3

Berean Study Bible
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

2 Peter 1:21

For no such prophecy was ever brought about through human initiative, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

May the Lord lead all into the truth of His Word. Amen.

dms1972 said:

"Tradition was now understood to be a separate, distinct source of revelation

Click to expand...

I dont think that is the case. It was by the Tradition of the Church, the teachings handed down from the Apostles was how the Early Church decided which books were of Divine origin. So, Scripture is simply part of the Tradition of the Church.

eleos1954 said:

Mark 7:8

Berean Study Bible
You have disregarded the commandment of God to keep the tradition of men.”

Mark 7:9
He went on to say, "You neatly set aside the commandment of God to maintain your own tradition.

Mark 7:13
Thus you nullify the word of God by the tradition you have handed down. And you do so in many such matters."

Click to expand...

etc etc

I could happily throw those back at you. Tradition means faith handed down.
And if you are not handing the "right" version down, you are handing down the traditions of men.

Go back to history and discover that from the first disciples of the apostles (for example) John taught his disciples that a valid eucharist of the real presence needed a succession Bishop: and the fact of the concept of validity (and of being able to profane it) means it is sacramental. That was the meaning handed down. The meaning of "bind and loose" gave those men power to give authority judgements

So those are the right versions. It would horrify many christians to know what those who chose their canon (under divine authority) and creed believed! Many were very vocal on the intercession of Mary. (which has scriptural backing if you know where to look)

I have no idea what doctrine you subscribe, but if you lie outside that chain of succession, or acceptance of that authority, and if what you teach contests those doctrines you are certainly passing only traditions of men!

Mountainmike said:

My opposition to sola scriptura was not in the table of contents of scripture, but in wholesale differences in the meaning attributed to many of the verses.

Click to expand...

Precisely. The fruits of SS are a disaster. For example:
Anglican branch of protestantism teaches birth control is morally evil, and then teaches it is not. Scripture didnt change. They taught homosexual actions were morally wrong, now they are ok. Scripture didnt change. They taught marraige was between a man and a women, now anything goes. Scripture didnt change.

Despite the best attempts to window dress SS, when you remove the curtain, you are left with a do whatever you want mentality.

Mountainmike said:

It is true, we do now.

But put yourself in the position of a second century christian.
How could that person know what was true?

Click to expand...

In fact, the earliest Christians did NOT know half of the beliefs we today argue about and consider to be so important. There was no concept of a Pope, or the exact number of sacraments, or all sorts of other matters. The first Christians knew and believed that Christ was the Messiah, the Savior, and that believing in Him was the way to eternal life. They also knew about evangelizing and the sacred ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper.

But you are suggesting that they simply had to have some way of filling in all the other blanks. Well, they didn't. Like it or not.

So as dms1972 so well explained a few posts back, centuries later the Church of Rome came up with the idea that God might have used a second source of revelation--custom or tradition--and the institutional church was, of course, the one to determine and announce what this supposed second source had revealed.

Luther said NO, the Scriptures which the church itself has canonized and we Christians of a later time now have proclaim their origin and their authority. No other source of essential doctrine is referred to in Scripture. And he was right about that.

That is a misunderstanding of sacred tradition that protestants have used ever since..

By the way. I dont recollect seeing McGraths name in scripture cited as having authority.
Remind me, I must have missed it.

I do recollect Peter (separately) and the apostles given the power to "bind and loose" - that is given the power to give definitive judgement on matters of faith and law.
The "pillar and foundation of truth is the church" we are told, which is the household of God, which we know from OT means physical church.

dms1972 said:

Doing a bit of further reading on this. McGrath points out there have been two understandings of tradition. One is that tradition means simply:

"a traditional way of interpreting Scripture within the community of faith" (McGrath: Reformation Thought)
​

However a different understanding of tradition developed in the 14th and 15th centuries. "Tradition was now understood to be a separate, distinct source of revelation, in addition to Scripture. The first is a single source theory of doctrine, doctrine is based on scripture, and "tradition" refers to a "traditional way of interpreting scripture". The second understanding by contrast is a dual-source theory of doctrine: doctrine is based upon two quite distinct sources, Scripture and unwritten tradition. Scripture it was argued, was silent on a number of points. But God had providentially arranged for a second source of revelation to suppliment this definciency: a stream of unwritten tradition - it was against this dual source theory that the Reformers primarily directed their criticisms. (McGrath - Reformation Thought)

Click to expand...

Albion said:

Perhaps you misunderstood my meaning. It was quite 'point blank' and did not even argue the point of the post I was responding to, although I considered the point to have been in error.

The consequence of accepting it is that one necessarily, automatically, separates himself from orthodox Christianity which considers Holy Scripture to be the word of God/divine revelation.


I really don't think that's accurate. The overwhelming number of Christian people and church bodies accept the same 66 books of the Bible, as canonized in the fourth century. All that separates these churches are the Apocryphal books which are worthwhile to read for instruction in "morals and manners," as they say, but which establish no doctrines!

Click to expand...

WHERE IN SCRIPTURE IS THAT LIST? That "the majority" might accept something DOES NOT WRITE IT IN SCRIPTURE! Give EXACT QUOTES, with book, chapter, verse citations for where the actual constituents of Scripture are listed WITHIN SCRIPTURE. It can't be hard to do if it exists. If it doesn't exist, then one must go OUTSIDE SCRIPTURE to DEFINE Scripture. That "the majority" might accept something doesn't appear in Scripture. So, go ahead, GIVE THE QUOTES that determine what is in Scripture. If you can't, then it means that Sola Scriptura cannot be supported by using Sola Scriptura. One must violate it to have it.

Tel me - where did dms1972 appear in scripture as source of authority?

I know what the early church believed, the correct interpretation of scripture, I see it in writings.

I see the power handed to the church to give authoritative judgements on faith and law.

I see in scripture where the Church is the foundation of truth, and that is why disputes are taken there.

I also see the correct meaning of such as eucharist. Not just "an ordinance". It can kill if profaned "some are ill, some have died". So it clearly was not done "just because it was ordered"

We are told "if you eat my body and drink my blood I will raise you up at the last day". Its rather important to know what that means. One meaning is NOT as good as another.

Which is why we must "stay true to tradition we told you " etc.

The old church needed a way to fill in blanks it is why they had moses seat!

Indeed if as you suggest, the church had no way to take decisions, and councils had no power the canon itself would be uninspired.

Albion said:

In fact, the earliest Christians did NOT know half of the beliefs we today argue about and consider to be so important. There was no concept of a Pope, or the exact number of sacraments, or all sorts of other matters. The first Christians knew and believed that Christ was the Messiah, the Savior, and that believing in Him was the way to eternal life. They also knew about evangelizing and the sacred ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper.

But you are suggesting that they simply had to have some way of filling in all the other blanks. Well, they didn't. Like it or not.

So as dms1972 so well explained a few posts back, centuries later the Church of Rome came up with the idea that God might have used a second source of revelation--custom or tradition--and the institutional church was, of course, the one to determine and announce what this supposed second source had revealed.

Luther said NO, the Scriptures which the church itself has canonized and we Christians of a later time now have proclaim their origin and their authority. No other source of essential doctrine is referred to in Scripture. And he was right about that.

Click to expand...

Mountainmike said:

Indeed. And the same Martin Luther was happy to add the word "alone" to one verse so it said " faith alone", because that is what he preferred scripture said!

Click to expand...

Proof?

pescador said:

Proof?

Click to expand...

No proof is needed. It is an old argument about romans 3:28. For the first time Luther put the word "alone" in. You will not find Luthers insertion in a modern translation.
Indeed the only place the words "faith" and "alone" appear together are to say in James 2:24 " a man is justified by his deeds and NOT faith alone"
It is why the arrogant **** wanted to remove the epistle of James, because he Luther knew better , or so he said.

But if you want to see the mindset of the man: read his defence of it.
Do you really trust a scholar who would write this.
"it is true because martin luther says it is, and only he knows" he said as follows (perhaps he missed the bit about sin of pride... he was not a nice man)

IN LUTHERS OWN WORDS:
"
…But to return to the matter in hand! If your papist wants to make so much fuss about the word sola (alone) tell him this, “Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and says that a papist and an ass are the same thing.” Sic volo, sic jubeo; sit pro ratione voluntas [I will it. I command it. My will is sufficient reason]. We are not going to be the pupils and disciples of the papists, but their masters and judges. For once, we too are going to be proud and brag with these blockheads; and as St. Paul boasts over against his mad raving saints [II Cor. 11:21ff.], so I shall boast over against these asses of mine. Are they doctors? So am I. Are they learned? So am I. Are they preachers? So am I. Are they theologians? So am I. Are they debaters? So am I. Are they philosophers? So am I. Are they dialecticians? So am I. Are they lecturers? So am I. Do they write books? So do I.

I will go further with my boasting. I can expound psalms and prophets; they cannot. I can translate; they cannot. I can read the Holy Scriptures; they cannot. I can pray; they cannot. And, to come down to their level, I can use their own dialectics and philosophy better than all of them put together; and besides I know for sure that none of them understands their Aristotle.23 If there is a single one among them all who correctly understands one proemium [preface] or chapter in Aristotle, I’ll eat my hat. I am not saying too much, for I have been trained and practiced from my youth up in all their science and am well aware how deep and broad it is. They are very well aware, too, that I can do everything they can. Yet these incurable fellows treat me as though I were a stranger to their field, who had just arrived this morning for the first time and had never before either seen or heard what they teach and know. So brilliantly do they parade about with their science, teaching me what I outgrew25 twenty years ago, that to all their blatting and shouting I have to sing, with the harlot, “I have known for seven years that horseshoe-nails are iron.”

Let this be the answer to your first question. And please give these asses no other and no further answer to their useless braying about the word sola than simply this, “Luther will have it so, and says that he is a doctor above all the doctors of the whole papacy.” It shall stay at that! Henceforth I shall simply hold them in contempt, and have them held in contempt, so long as they are the kind of people—I should say, asses—that they are. There are shameless nincompoops among them who have never learned their own art of sophistry—like Dr. Schmidt and Doctor Snotty-Nose, and their likes—and who set themselves against me in this matter, which transcends not only sophistry, but (as St. Paul says [I Cor. 1:19–25]), all the world’s wisdom and understanding as well. Truly an ass need not sing much; he is already well known anyway by his ears.