Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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....
Indeed. And the same Martin Luther was happy to add the word "alone" to one verse so it said " faith alone"...
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!
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 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.The point is of wider significance. Why not include the protoevangelium of James? or Shepherd of Hermas?
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.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.
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.
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?
All view scripture, both what is classed as scripture, the translation of it, and the meaning of it through a lens of a tradition.
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!)
I could point easily at ten bible verses on which catholics and others profoundly disagree the meaning.
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!
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."Tradition was now understood to be a separate, distinct source of revelation
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."
Precisely. The fruits of SS are a disaster. For example: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.
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.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?
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)
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!
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.
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!
Proof?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?