Prima Scriptura and Sola Scriptura?

[concretecamper]

Take a poll right here about what Protestants mean by Sola Scriptura

I would revise the poll in this way:
Take a poll right here about what protestant communities teach that SS means.

The point to all this is not what an individual believes, but what the different protestant communities teach. You of course will get wildly different answers.

 

[Albion]

you may think that the way the Baptist teach SS doent have any meaning. But your thought highlights that everyone thinks they are right.

Sure. Protestants and Catholics alike. But what we are discussing is the meaning of the term, not what people in any church who don't understand it will guess at.

 

[Hazelelponi]

THE Reformation definition or one of many definitions that are floating around out there?

Of the many Native American tribes on the North American continent is a tribe we call "Apache".

However, that name means "enemy" and we learned it as their name, from other Native Americans who were their enemies, however, apache was never the name of that people.

My point in so saying is that, the least accurate information we can gather, is from those who either don't understand us, or are in truth our enemies.

So if you want to learn the truth of what we mean by what we say, as in the case of SS, you'd desire to ask the most knowledgeable in reformation doctrine, not the enemies thereof or those who don't understand the doctrine.

 

[Albion]

I would revise the poll in this way:
Take a poll right here about what protestant communities teach that SS means.

The point to all this is not what an individual believes, but what the different protestant communities teach. You of course will get wildly different answers.

Just as you'll get wildly different answers in a poll asking Catholics about Catholic doctrine.

All such polls do is show the lack of knowledge in any church. But that isn't the topic of this thread.

 

[concretecamper]

Sure. Protestants and Catholics alike. But what we are discussing is the meaning of the term, not what people in any church who don't understand it will guess at.

we are discussing what the different protestant communities teach about the meaning of SS. Keep on topic please.

 

[concretecamper]

Just as you'll get wildly different answers in a poll asking Catholics about Catholic doctrine.

that is not the point. You have 1 consistent teaching from the Catholic Church, and wildly different teachings from protestant communities. All these protestant communities teach different meaning about SS and wildly different meanings from scripture.

It is obvious SS is a non starter

 

[Albion]

we are discussing what the different protestant communities teach about the meaning of SS. Keep on topic please.

That is not the topic, as anyone who can read the title or the OP can see for himself.

The topic concerns the definition of terms, not popular opinion polls.

However, the definition of Sola Scriptura has already been given here many times and by various posters, so there really is nothing more to add.

 

[concretecamper]

That is not the topic, as anyone who can read the title or the OP can see for himself.

The topic is definition of terms, not popular opinion polls.

we are discussing why protestant communities define and teach SS differently. And by extension, why highly educated scripture scholars who lead these communities teach different doctrine derived from the same bible.

You may not want to discuss all this, I wonder why?

 

[hedrick]

I think prima scriptura is used to clarify what sola scriptura originally meant.

 

[FenderTL5]

Two pages in and the only thing established is that Sola Scriptura, in practice, does not mean scripture alone.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Once again, there is a definition for Sola Scriptura, no matter how many people don't know it--just as there is a definition for Transubstantiation even though most people, including most Catholics don't know it.

The issue here is the meaning, not the number of people who aren't well-versed in theology.

Convince all of your fellow Protestants of that one meaning then. Or try. I'll watch.

 

[chevyontheriver]

So if you want to learn the truth of what we mean by what we say, as in the case of SS, you'd desire to ask the most knowledgeable in reformation doctrine, not the enemies thereof or those who don't understand the doctrine.

I'm listening.

 

[Albion]

Convince all of your fellow Protestants of that one meaning then. Or try. I'll watch.

Why? The meaning of Sola Scriptura is already established.

Why doesn't the Catholic Church convince all of its members what Transubstantiation means if getting everyone to be adequately schooled in these things is so essential?

 

[concretecamper]

Convince all of your fellow Protestants of that one meaning then. Or try. I'll watch.

I would suggest you revise your approach.

Do not focus on what individual protestants believe. Just like poorly catechized Catholics, poorly catechized protestants may not understand what their particular community teaches.

Focus instead on the Protestant Communities. You have highly educated bible scholars leading these Communities. You have wildly different teachings on what SS means from these Communities led by these highly educated Bible scholars. And by extension, you have wildly different teachings on the same topic all taken from the bible by these highly educated bible scholars.

The easiest things to do is to latch onto the poorly catechized individual, which what has been done.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Two pages in and the only thing established is that Sola Scriptura, in practice, does not mean scripture alone.

The context of what "alone" means is necessary.

If I say "I only love my wife" do I mean that my wife is the only person who I have any love for? That I don't love my children, my parents, my siblings, my friends, my neighbors, or that I don't love the Lord? Of course not. It would mean that I am faithful to my wife and that I am not chasing after other women. The "only" here is contextually grounded in the spousal relationship.

Likewise the historic definition of the "alone" in Scripture alone is that only Scripture can be the infallible rule of faith and practice. That does not mean that we reject the fathers, the creeds, and the historic traditions of the Church; it means that Christian faith and practice is chiefly guided by the rule of Scripture, and that which is at odds with Scripture are overruled by Scripture. Thus the command that we believe in and worship only one God means that we cannot believe in and worship any other god; that should seem somewhat obvious, but if someone out there starts preaching that there are many gods, we can point to Scripture and say, "No, we confess there is only one God and He alone do we worship." And that, precisely, is also how the historic Creeds came about, precisely by articulating the faith as we have received it from the beginning. The Creeds do not introduce novel doctrines, but affirm and articulate the true faith as we have received it from the beginning. Thus the Creeds are dependent upon Scripture, upon the unfailing rule of faith as received and confessed from the beginning as we see it witnessed to in the writings which have been received as Sacred Scripture.

"But the Bible is tradition", yes it is. The Canon is most definitely a tradition of the Church, and so our acceptance of the Bible is a subscribing to the tradition of the Church--there's nothing wrong with tradition, and the historic position of the Reformation Churches was never to reject or abhor the received traditions of the Church. But what the Reformation did argue was that novel teachings, practices, and traditions which were in conflict with the ancient faith and which were in conflict with the received word of God in Scripture are problematic, and that if we must choose between what those in positions of ecclesiastical authority say and what the Scriptures says, the Christian as an individual and the Church as a whole must choose Scripture over anything novel and contradictory to the apostolic faith.

It is a methodology of making address and rebuke to teachings and practices which obfuscate the truth of the Gospel, in order to preserve the Gospel as the chief article of Christian faith; that the Church faithfully preaches the word which she has been entrusted to preach from Christ her Lord.

In the centuries since the Reformation some Protestants and some Protestant groups have come to grossly misunderstand what Sola Scriptura means in its proper context. This is not the fault of Sola Scriptura, but rather the fault of those who are unwilling to understand the proper history and context. Sola Scriptura only makes sense in the context of historical Christianity, removed from that context and it largely becomes meaningless, and little more than justification for some to engage in carte blanche DIY religion.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[concretecamper]

The context of what "alone" means is necessary.

If I say "I only love my wife" do I mean that my wife is the only person who I have any love for? That I don't love my children, my parents, my siblings, my friends, my neighbors, or that I don't love the Lord? Of course not. It would mean that I am faithful to my wife and that I am not chasing after other women. The "only" here is contextually grounded in the spousal relationship.

Likewise the historic definition of the "alone" in Scripture alone is that only Scripture can be the infallible rule of faith and practice. That does not mean that we reject the fathers, the creeds, and the historic traditions of the Church; it means that Christian faith and practice is chiefly guided by the rule of Scripture, and that which is at odds with Scripture are overruled by Scripture. Thus the command that we believe in and worship only one God means that we cannot believe in and worship any other god; that should seem somewhat obvious, but if someone out there starts preaching that there are many gods, we can point to Scripture and say, "No, we confess there is only one God and He alone do we worship." And that, precisely, is also how the historic Creeds came about, precisely by articulating the faith as we have received it from the beginning. The Creeds do not introduce novel doctrines, but affirm and articulate the true faith as we have received it from the beginning. Thus the Creeds are dependent upon Scripture, upon the unfailing rule of faith as received and confessed from the beginning as we see it witnessed to in the writings which have been received as Sacred Scripture.

"But the Bible is tradition", yes it is. The Canon is most definitely a tradition of the Church, and so our acceptance of the Bible is a subscribing to the tradition of the Church--there's nothing wrong with tradition, and the historic position of the Reformation Churches was never to reject or abhor the received traditions of the Church. But what the Reformation did argue was that novel teachings, practices, and traditions which were in conflict with the ancient faith and which were in conflict with the received word of God in Scripture are problematic, and that if we must choose between what those in positions of ecclesiastical authority say and what the Scriptures says, the Christian as an individual and the Church as a whole must choose Scripture over anything novel and contradictory to the apostolic faith.

It is a methodology of making address and rebuke to teachings and practices which obfuscate the truth of the Gospel, in order to preserve the Gospel as the chief article of Christian faith; that the Church faithfully preaches the word which she has been entrusted to preach from Christ her Lord.

In the centuries since the Reformation some Protestants and some Protestant groups have come to grossly misunderstand what Sola Scriptura means in its proper context. This is not the fault of Sola Scriptura, but rather the fault of those who are unwilling to understand the proper history and context. Sola Scriptura only makes sense in the context of historical Christianity, removed from that context and it largely becomes meaningless, and little more than justification for some to engage in carte blanche DIY religion.

-CryptoLutheran

Thank you for the very complete explanation/definition of SS from your community's point of view.

But there are other protestant POVs

 

[Tra Phull]

The award for MOST CONDESCENDING TOWARDS PROTESTANTS now has thecolorsblend in a slight lead.

Who is the artist - this anti-Protestant version of Jack Chick - whose drawings we are all blessed to be edified with?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Why? The meaning of Sola Scriptura is already established.

If you think so. I'll watch and see.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I would suggest you revise your approach.

Do not focus on what individual protestants believe. Just like poorly catechized Catholics, poorly catechized protestants may not understand what their particular community teaches.

Focus instead on the Protestant Communities. You have highly educated bible scholars leading these Communities. You have wildly different teachings on what SS means from these Communities led by these highly educated Bible scholars. And by extension, you have wildly different teachings on the same topic all taken from the bible by these highly educated bible scholars.

The easiest things to do is to latch onto the poorly catechized individual, which what has been done.

My 'approach' is now to just watch as this all develops. Let them all show me that they have one dogma of Sola Scriptura.

 

[BryanJohnMaloney]

Actually that’s a bad description of Sola Scriptura.

Here’s a good source on how other authority applies.

Understanding Sola Scriptura

I found it to be vague and merely hand-waving. Yes, an opinion was expressed against the type of Sola Scriptura that is the most popular in the present day, but there's no actual case made against that behavior, only calling it bad.