Prima Scriptura and Sola Scriptura?

[BryanJohnMaloney]

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

I couldnt have made it any clearer than your post did. Thank you

What amuses me the most about Baptists, at least in my experience, is how they stress so very very very very very much that they do not have rituals. Then they perform their rituals.

 

[JM]

Good Day, Redleghunter

MICHAEL KRUGER is awesome his work on the cannon and the NT history is simply the best.

In Him

Bill

I've read and listened to Kruger, he assumes sola scriptura before proving it and somehow places the emphasis on the "community" as the determiner of canon. That community discovering what was holy scripture and not deciding on what was holy scripture. I don't have a problem with this really it's just not very helpful overall considering Catholics and Orthodox claim the "community" is their particular communion.

Prima scriptura replaces tradition with reason and ends in rationalism or liberalism. Sola scriptura allows for scripture alone, tradition in the background.

What is the difference between Prima Scriptura and Sola Scriptura?

James White:

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience.

To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby. (end quote)

Scripture is God-breathed and therefore the very voice of God.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Albion]

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

For the ump0teenth time, it doesn't impugn the concept that's called Sola Scriptura if some people misunderstand it.

And that would be your own defense of the unique doctrines that your church has promulgated if we simply substituted Papal Infallibility or Purgatory for Sola Scriptura.

 

[chevyontheriver]

For the ump0teenth time, it doesn't impugn the concept that's called Sola Scriptura if some people misunderstand it.

Well you undoubtedly think you have it right. I'll just watch how the discussion goes.

 

[BobRyan]

What is the difference between Prima Scriptura and Sola Scriptura?

One says the scripture is the only test of faith and doctrine --
And Prima Scriptura (in its best most ideal form) says that scripture is the number 1 test of faith and doctrine - but other sources can also be used as a test - yet as lesser authority (assuming those other sources themselves have passed the sola scriptura test).

 

[BobRyan]

Take a poll right here about what Protestants mean by Sola Scriptura and you will get a variety of answers even from knowlegable folks.

If that were the case then Catholics would not all be united in opposing something that is so malleable. In indeed if they could easily apply it to whatever way they could tolerate or affirm it -- then they would always affirm that statement.

For example, atonement, gospel, New Covenant. these are terms that everyone says they embrace in full -- even Catholics. Yet everyone has a slightly different definition. You would not end up with every single time someone says "the Atonement of Christ is key to the Gospel" - having Catholics strongly "object". They would rather say "yes - that is what we think as well".

 

[BobRyan]

Take a poll right here about what Protestants mean by Sola Scriptura and you will get a variety of answers even from knowlegable folks. Ask a knowlegable Catholic about anything on your list above and the definitions will be relatively tight.

1. Baptists are not Anglicans are not Adventists.
2. Catholics are not Baptists

You have taken one denomination (Catholics) and said that one denomination tends to be more consistent "Inside ITSELF" than a group of other denomination are ACROSS denominations. "As if" that is saying something.

I too can do that. I can point out that the term "Atonement" is more uniformly defined INSIDE the Adventist church within its own scholars than the term is defined BETWEEN Catholics and Methodist and Church of Christ. How is that a "proof" of anything???

 

[chevyontheriver]

If that were the case then Catholics would not all be united in opposing something that is so malleable. In indeed if they could easily apply it to whatever way they could tolerate or affirm it -- then they would always affirm that statement.

Hey, right now I'm just going to watch all of you agree on the Reformation dogma of Sola Scriptura. So go for it. I'll watch.

 

[Markie Boy]

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.

Exactly - Catholicism is supposed to be completely against contraception. Yet something like 98% of Catholics use or have used birth control.

I find Catholics to be just as varying as protestants in thought and practice.

If I compare Catholics to Baptists - as I used to attend a Baptist church - the Baptists actually seemed much more united than Catholics. I looked up voting records from the elections with Obama. Catholics voted about 50-50 in those elections - where only about 25% of Baptists voted for Obama.

In general - I found Baptists to be more united and more conservative than Catholics.

 

[dms1972]

OK, I'd prefer the thread to be deleted than it become contentious or confusing.

 

[Mountainmike]

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.

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!)

Indeed Jesus did not urge his disciples to write, he gave us disciples to "go out and teach all nations". Jesus said "do this" not "read this" or "write this"

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? The very idea of "validity" - or the idea that it can be profaned, demonstrates it cannot simply be a memorial. Yet all read those verses differently. Tradition is needed to resolve them.

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?

In short tradition is inseperable , it gives meaning to scripture. It is not something separate or an aside. We need both to have the word of God. Without which we just have words.

The wrongful separation of scripture from meaning is why protestant sects schism and schism again. They have no means to resolve conflict on meaning, and all are adamant "their interpreation" is the correct one. All claim they have discerned the spirit. Clearly the spirit does not give contradictory answers. So looking back at tradition and authority, is how to resolve contradictions.

Prima Scriptura

Among the sources available to followers of Jesus today for guidance on questions of faith and practice, Scripture stands in primacy of place, being supplemented by creeds, the Traditions of the Church, experience, and plain (human) reason.

Prims Scriptura - allows for creeds & tradition(s) .... Sola scriptura does not ... it is the Bible and Bible only.

Colossians 2:8
See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

If the tradition is taught in His word then fine .... outside of that ... no ... and that is Sola scriptura

 

[concretecamper]

OK, I'd prefer the thread to be deleted than it become contentious or confusing.

you can request that the moderators close the thread.

 

[Albion]

If I compare Catholics to Baptists - as I used to attend a Baptist church - the Baptists actually seemed much more united than Catholics.

...which is why Catholic debaters insist upon comparing their church and its members against ALL Protestants at once.

If they were to make a fair comparison by comparing one church against one other church, what you refer to here would most often be the result. For certain, the unity they claim would be disproved.

 

[BryanJohnMaloney]

The funny thing about Sola Scriptura is that nowhere in Scripture is the definitive list of what is in Scripture. Thus, it is not possible to have a Scriptura unless one does not do Sola.

 

[Albion]

The funny thing about Sola Scriptura is that nowhere in Scripture is the definitive list of what is in Scripture. Thus, it is not possible to have a Scriptura unless one does not do Sola.

And the only way that a person can hold to or agree with that line of thought is if he disregards Scriptura altogether, making him a non-Christian.

So how does taking that posture resolve this famous Christian dispute?

 

[BryanJohnMaloney]

And the only way that a person can hold to or agree with that line of thought is if he disregards Scriptura altogether, making him a non-Christian.

So how does taking that posture resolve this famous Christian dispute?

Give me FROM SCRIPTURE ALONE the list of what is in Scripture. NO interpretation permitted.

 

[Mountainmike]

And the only way that a person can hold to or agree with that line of thought is if he disregards Scriptura altogether, making him a non-Christian.

So how does taking that posture resolve this famous Christian dispute?

That is a poor answer Albion.
What is IN scripture is clearly one of the fundamental disputes that separate christians - and indeed scripture itself cannot resolve. It does not make you non christian to believe you need authority to decide what is scripture, it is what all believed till the reformation, and most christians have believed ever since.!

`

 

[Mountainmike]

OK, I'd prefer the thread to be deleted than it become contentious or confusing.

With respect, this is a contentious and confusing subject.
It cannot be raised without contention.
It is also one of the fundamentals that divides us all.

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, since all need something from outside of scripture to resolve the conflicts on meaning, indeed to decide what is valid scripture.

 

[BryanJohnMaloney]

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.

 

[Albion]

That is a poor answer Albion.

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.

What is IN scripture is clearly one of the fundamental disputes that separate christians - and indeed scripture itself cannot resolve.

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!