Prima Scriptura and Sola Scriptura?

[concretecamper]

It is a given that Luther added the word "Alone" in Romans. I've read some lame attempts to justify his adding the word.

However, the "proof" is that protestants themselves removed it. However, the theology unfortunately stuck.

 

[Mountainmike]

It is a given that Luther added the word "Alone" in Romans. I've read some lame attempts to justify his adding the word.

However, the "proof" is that protestants themselves removed it. However, the theology unfortunately stuck.

But have you said what Luther said in defence of it! read my post above. His mindset was the definition of supreme arrogance!

 

[Athanasius377]

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.

Another persistent myth. Here is what Luther Actually wrote about James:

1522:
In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it. But more of this in the other prefaces.]12

Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 35: Word and Sacrament I. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, & H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 35, p. 362). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

1522:
Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle; and my reasons follow.

In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works [2:24]. It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac [2:21]; though in Romans 4[:2–22] St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15[:6]. Now although this epistle might be helped and an interpretation devised for this justification by works, it cannot be defended in its application to works [Jas. 2:23] of Moses’ statement in Genesis 15[:6]. For Moses is speaking here only of Abraham’s faith, and not of his works, as St. Paul demonstrates in Romans 4. This fault, therefore, proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle.

In the second place its purpose is to teach Christians, but in all this long teaching it does not once mention the Passion, the resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ. He names Christ several times; however he teaches nothing about him, but only speaks of general faith in God. Now it is the office of a true apostle to preach of the Passion and resurrection and office of Christ, and to lay the foundation for faith in him, as Christ himself says in John 15[:27], “You shall bear witness to me.” All the genuine sacred books agree in this, that all of them preach and inculcate [treiben] Christ. And that is the true test by which to judge all books, when we see whether or not they inculcate Christ. For all the Scriptures show us Christ, Romans 3[:21]; and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ, 1 Corinthians 2[:2]. Whatever does not teach Christ is not yet apostolic, even though St. Peter or St. Paul does the teaching. Again, whatever preaches Christ would be apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod were doing it.

But this James does nothing more than drive to the law and to its works. Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching. He calls the law a “law of liberty” [1:25], though Paul calls it a law of slavery, of wrath, of death, and of sin.

Moreover he cites the sayings of St. Peter [in 5:20]: “Love covers a multitude of sins” [1 Pet. 4:8], and again [in 4:10], “Humble yourselves under the hand of God” [1 Pet. 5:6]; also the saying of St. Paul in Galatians 5[:17], “The Spirit lusteth against envy.” And yet, in point of time, St. James was put to death by Herod [Acts 12:2] in Jerusalem, before St. Peter. So it seems that [this author] came long after St. Peter and St. Paul.

In a word, he wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task. He tries to accomplish by harping on the law what the apostles accomplish by stimulating people to love. Therefore55 I cannot include him among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him.

Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 35: Word and Sacrament I. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, & H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 35, pp. 395–397). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Notice that Luther is recalling a dispute about the James and other books in the early church. Also notice the year. Luther wrote his personal opinion about James yet included the book in his NT. ( along with a translation of the OT Apocrypha) The above introduction does not appear in any later editions of his NT or complete Bible. Yet Luther also wrote the following citing James as authoritative scripture. So what gives? Simply put, he changed his mind.

11 8. We believe, teach, and confess that the contrition that comes before justification, and the good works that follow it, do not belong to the article of justification before God. Yet one is not to imagine a kind of faith that can exist and abide with, and alongside of, a wicked intention to sin and to act against the conscience. But after man has been justified through faith, then a true living faith works by love (Galatians 5:6). Good works always follow justifying faith and are surely found with it—if it is true and living faith [James 2:26]. Faith is never alone, but always has love and hope with it [1 Corinthians 13:13].

McCain, P. T. (Ed.). (2005). Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions (p. 481). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House.

 

[Albion]

But have you said what Luther said in defence of it! read my post above. His mindset was the definition of supreme arrogance!

Have we now arrived at not caring for Luther's manner...although he was right about the issue we are debating??

If so, you are now in step with most Lutherans and most historians, too.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Actually that’s a bad description of Sola Scriptura.

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


Understanding Sola Scriptura

Actually I read in your referenced article that it is not only The Scriptures, that we read and is taught to us but it is also by action , in other words , leading by example . New creeds and doctrines created by man., is not Solo scrptura . Be blessed.

 

[Albion]

Actually I read in your referenced article that it is not only The Scriptures, that we read and is taught to us but it is also by action , in other words , leading by example

I don't think you're referring there to an alternative to Scripture when it comes to having something that determines essential doctrine.

 

[dms1972]

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.

I take your point. But I wasn't quite posing the two in opposition, I was asking if there is any difference and what it is. But what we need to find out is what way the Reformers approached the matter of Authority, and what they meant by sola Scriptura. Just working from the two words Scripture Alone is not helpful and only lead to misunderstandings. Rather I think one needs to understand the background to the whole thing. I am currently reading Alister McGraths book Reformation Thought in order to get a better grasp of it.

 

[Athanasius377]

I am currently reading Alister McGraths book Reformation Thought in order to get a better grasp of it.

Great read BTW. And a fair for the most part handling of the issues.

 

[Athanasius377]

It is a given that Luther added the word "Alone" in Romans. I've read some lame attempts to justify his adding the word.

However, the "proof" is that protestants themselves removed it. However, the theology unfortunately stuck.

I actually agree with your point about Luther adding to scripture. But that’s why Luther isn’t the only important theologian of the Lutheran church. Others like Melancton and Chemnitz and Gerhard tempered Luther’s more outrageous statements. The summary of our doctrine exists in the Book of a Concord and not the utterances if one man. And yes, arguing for the addition of the word is wholly inconsistent with the principal of SS. Which is why Luther’s heirs reject his translation in practice even though they want to defend Luther.

 

[Athanasius377]

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.

This comes from an open letter on Translation. Luther is has been arguing for his translation for some time and looses his patience. Which I might as a Lutheran isn’t hard to provoke Luther to do. To say Luther was ham fisted at times is an understatement. He could be equal parts genius and jack@$$ No Lutheran would disagree this Luther pounding on the table in rage. But that’s why there are other important theologians in our tradition that temper Luther. But that still doesn’t take away from the truth of SS.

Glad to see you back on CF btw.

 

[Mountainmike]

Indeed, and you! Always a pleasure to read.

This comes from an open letter on Translation. Luther is has been arguing for his translation for some time and looses his patience. Which I might as a Lutheran isn’t hard to provoke Luther to do. To say Luther was ham fisted at times is an understatement. He could be equal parts genius and jack@$$ No Lutheran would disagree this Luther pounding on the table in rage. But that’s why there are other important theologians in our tradition that temper Luther. But that still doesn’t take away from the truth of SS.

Glad to see you back on CF btw.

 

[Mountainmike]

Have we now arrived at not caring for Luther's manner...although he was right about the issue we are debating??

If so, you are now in step with most Lutherans and most historians, too.

With respect, the matter on which he was introduced at least by me was insertion of the word “ only “ : whilst Luther was an important figure, on that he did not stand the test of history. Later scholars removed his insertion.

And you have said nothing that challenges my premise: that all add something from outside scripture to resolve the meaning of it, so something is added to turn mere words into the word of God. So scripture cannot stand alone. We differ in disagreeing what the “something” is.

 

[Mountainmike]

There is more to what Luther said


I consider that it is not the writing of any apostle. My reasons are as follows. First: Flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture, it ascribes righteousness to works. . . .. . . . James does nothing more than drive to the law and its works; and he mixes the two up in such disorderly fashion that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took some sayings of the apostles’ disciples and threw them thus on paper; or perhaps they were written down by someone else from his preaching. . . . In a word, he wants to guard against those who relied on faith without works, and is unequal to the task . . . and would accomplish by insisting on the Law what the apostles accomplish by inciting men to love. ...
“In a word, St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that it is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to the others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it

He is saying that James may have Been a good man, with a few valuable sayings, but either he was misquoted , or he simply got it wrong. Not gospel. not apostle. So it is more than a myth, Luther has struck James from his own view of canonical validity.

Another persistent myth. Here is what Luther Actually wrote about James:

1522:
In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it. But more of this in the other prefaces.]12

Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 35: Word and Sacrament I. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, & H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 35, p. 362). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

1522:
Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle; and my reasons follow.

In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works [2:24]. It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac [2:21]; though in Romans 4[:2–22] St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15[:6]. Now although this epistle might be helped and an interpretation devised for this justification by works, it cannot be defended in its application to works [Jas. 2:23] of Moses’ statement in Genesis 15[:6]. For Moses is speaking here only of Abraham’s faith, and not of his works, as St. Paul demonstrates in Romans 4. This fault, therefore, proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle.

In the second place its purpose is to teach Christians, but in all this long teaching it does not once mention the Passion, the resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ. He names Christ several times; however he teaches nothing about him, but only speaks of general faith in God. Now it is the office of a true apostle to preach of the Passion and resurrection and office of Christ, and to lay the foundation for faith in him, as Christ himself says in John 15[:27], “You shall bear witness to me.” All the genuine sacred books agree in this, that all of them preach and inculcate [treiben] Christ. And that is the true test by which to judge all books, when we see whether or not they inculcate Christ. For all the Scriptures show us Christ, Romans 3[:21]; and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ, 1 Corinthians 2[:2]. Whatever does not teach Christ is not yet apostolic, even though St. Peter or St. Paul does the teaching. Again, whatever preaches Christ would be apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod were doing it.

But this James does nothing more than drive to the law and to its works. Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching. He calls the law a “law of liberty” [1:25], though Paul calls it a law of slavery, of wrath, of death, and of sin.

Moreover he cites the sayings of St. Peter [in 5:20]: “Love covers a multitude of sins” [1 Pet. 4:8], and again [in 4:10], “Humble yourselves under the hand of God” [1 Pet. 5:6]; also the saying of St. Paul in Galatians 5[:17], “The Spirit lusteth against envy.” And yet, in point of time, St. James was put to death by Herod [Acts 12:2] in Jerusalem, before St. Peter. So it seems that [this author] came long after St. Peter and St. Paul.

In a word, he wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task. He tries to accomplish by harping on the law what the apostles accomplish by stimulating people to love. Therefore55 I cannot include him among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him.

Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 35: Word and Sacrament I. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, & H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 35, pp. 395–397). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Notice that Luther is recalling a dispute about the James and other books in the early church. Also notice the year. Luther wrote his personal opinion about James yet included the book in his NT. ( along with a translation of the OT Apocrypha) The above introduction does not appear in any later editions of his NT or complete Bible. Yet Luther also wrote the following citing James as authoritative scripture. So what gives? Simply put, he changed his mind.

11 8. We believe, teach, and confess that the contrition that comes before justification, and the good works that follow it, do not belong to the article of justification before God. Yet one is not to imagine a kind of faith that can exist and abide with, and alongside of, a wicked intention to sin and to act against the conscience. But after man has been justified through faith, then a true living faith works by love (Galatians 5:6). Good works always follow justifying faith and are surely found with it—if it is true and living faith [James 2:26]. Faith is never alone, but always has love and hope with it [1 Corinthians 13:13].

McCain, P. T. (Ed.). (2005). Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions (p. 481). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House.

 

[Cormack]

that all add something from outside scripture to resolve the meaning of it, so something is added to turn mere words into the word of God. So scripture cannot stand alone. We differ in disagreeing what the “something” is.

Resolve the meaning of it? What if a man or woman simply read the Bible and believed in its content? I really don’t mean to be cute or glib by asking that The outside confirmation would be the readers God given thinking facilities. Obviously people write of the Spirit too (but I’m trying to keep my question out of the weeds.)

Nothing really “turned mere words into the words of God,” rather somebody came to the realisation that the words they had been reading (or were about to read) were in fact His words the entire time.

ON TOPIC: I’ve heard people define sola Scriptura as “Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith.” That seemed very incontrovertible and dull at the time. Doesn’t almost everyone in the churches consider the Bible an infallible rule amidst the many books, traditions, creeds, scripts and rules?

 

[Mountainmike]

Well. Your fellow christians of many denominations have thinking facilities (its a little condescending to pretend they have not don't you think? - so you have you not put it in the weeds with the "only I am right" complex like Luther! ) and they all come to poles opposite conclusions about what scripture means.

I take one example: With eucharist we have all shades represented from a memorial ordinance with no sanctifying grace to a sacrament of transubstantiation for which a priest in succession must preside for the sacrament to be valid. Those who say it must be bread and wine. Those who say it can be crackers and grape juice. Those who chuck it down the sink, and those who think after blessing it is somethign special that cannot be binned! There is pretty much every permutation in between.

All of those people read the same scripture.
The one thing we do know is "profaning" it is dangerous. So getting it right is critical.

Even martin luther, despaired of the consequence of opening pandoras box. The problem with sola scriputra is EVERYONE not just him can take a view of what it means. "It is the greatest scandal - every milkmaid now has their own doctrine" he lamented.

He was not self aware enough to recognise, that if all you have is mere words, and you are free to interpret them in any manner consistent with the language used (ie sola scriptura). Then it is a recipe for endless schism on every point of doctrine. He had to disavow the magisterium of the church that had stood for 1500 years in order to take his own view of scripture. He failed to realise that by removing all other authority, EVERYONE else was free to do the same! And they did! They have been in schism ever since.

If I lookI can find at least 5 flavours ( some mutually incompatible) of baptism, eucharist, moral issues, justification, predestination, even on the trinity (ask some Pentecostals!), marriage, on the prieshood and succession , end times, purgation, .... The only thing uniting these groups is that 1. They use the same scripture 2. They disagree on every point of doctrine. ie what scripture means. The reason IS sola scriptura!!
Worse still that is thousands of permutations of beliefs, extracted from one scripture, and since the truth is unique , all but one set are preaching error!

So By what authority do you think "your version" of the truth is correct?
All have "thinking" apparatus.
Sure you share the words. But only with the right meaning are you sharing the word of God.

Resolve the meaning of it? What if a man or woman simply read the Bible and believed in its content? I really don’t mean to be cute or glib by asking that The outside confirmation would be the readers God given thinking facilities. Obviously people write of the Spirit too (but I’m trying to keep my question out of the weeds.)

Nothing really “turned mere words into the words of God,” rather somebody came to the realisation that the words they had been reading (or were about to read) were in fact His words the entire time.

ON TOPIC: I’ve heard people define sola Scriptura as “Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith.” That seemed very incontrovertible and dull at the time. Doesn’t almost everyone in the churches consider the Bible an infallible rule amidst the many books, traditions, creeds, scripts and rules?

 

[Athanasius377]

There is more to what Luther said


I consider that it is not the writing of any apostle. My reasons are as follows. First: Flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture, it ascribes righteousness to works. . . .. . . . James does nothing more than drive to the law and its works; and he mixes the two up in such disorderly fashion that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took some sayings of the apostles’ disciples and threw them thus on paper; or perhaps they were written down by someone else from his preaching. . . . In a word, he wants to guard against those who relied on faith without works, and is unequal to the task . . . and would accomplish by insisting on the Law what the apostles accomplish by inciting men to love. ...
“In a word, St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that it is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to the others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it

He is saying that James may have Been a good man, with a few valuable sayings, but either he was misquoted , or he simply got it wrong. Not gospel. not apostle. So it is more than a myth, Luther has struck James from his own view of canonical validity.

I quoted that entire quote in a previous post including this part:

Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle; and my reasons follow.

It was part of his introduction to James that appeared in 1522 in his edition of the NT. It was not included in his later editions of the Luther Bible. Also note that the book was still included in his edition of the NT. Yet James is quoted as authoritative in the Large Catechism which was authored by Luther at a later time. Why? because Luther changed his mind. But also recall Luther was hardly the first person to question the canonicity of James, Jude, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Hebrews and Revelation. These books together are known as antilegomena or books that are spoken against.
Eusebius of Caeserea (ca. 320's) observes:

Of the Disputed Books which are nevertheless known to most are the Epistle called of James, that of Jude, the second Epistle of Peter, and the so-called second and third Epistles of John which may be the work of the evangelist or of some other with the same name.

Kirsopp, L. (1926–1932). Preface. In T. E. Page, E. Capps, W. H. D. Rouse, L. A. Post, & E. H. Warmington (Eds.), K. Lake & J. E. L. Oulton (Trans.), The Ecclesiastical History and 2: English Translation (Vol. 1, p. 257). London; New York; Cambridge, MA: William Heinemann; G. P. Putnam’s Sons; Harvard University Press.

What we see in this development from Luther is his theology maturing. Making his theology adhere to scripture and not the other way around.

 

[Albion]

And you have said nothing that challenges my premise: that all add something from outside scripture to resolve the meaning of it, so something is added to turn mere words into the word of God. So scripture cannot stand alone. We differ in disagreeing what the “something” is.

You know, this commonly-heard dispute is really over nothing significant.

Yes, Luther, the great Bible scholar, is made by his modern day detractors to look like someone who deliberately tampered with Scripture in order to make it agree with a theory of his own. So that misrepresentation will remain popular in some quarters.

However, the fact is that the issue we are supposedly discussing isn't about adding a word to Scripture.

If Scripture states something--and does not also tell us of any alternatives or additions--then that 'something' is what it is testifying to.

If we are justified by Faith, no one is at liberty to say "Well, it didn't also say that there wasn't something else or couldn't be anything else besides Faith, so here's what we are going to add." In practice, those unScriptural additions are "Sacred Tradition," wholesale prophesies, or even new "Scripture," depending on which denomination we are referring to.

 

[Athanasius377]

Indeed, and you! Always a pleasure to read.

Thanks Mike, you as well.

 

[Cormack]

and they all come to poles opposite conclusions about what scripture means.

The problem with sola scriputra is EVERYONE not just him can take a view of what it means.

Those who chuck it down the sink, and those who think after blessing it is somethign special that cannot be binned! There is pretty much every permutation in between.

"It is the greatest scandal - every milkmaid now has their own doctrine" he lamented.

Does a cross section of different (and even contradictory) opinions on the definitional level invalidate your or my particular opinion though? If the argument is that other opinions cause our views to be unjustifiable, I’m not sure that follows.

Muslims argue about Jesus with us on the definitional level, but my sources on the life of Jesus are 1st century eyewitness biographies, while the Muslims are using 7th century fiction. My beliefs are objectively more justified than theirs regardless of the definitional debate. Disagreement doesn’t matter because they can’t justify their disagreement.

The bread and wine is an interesting example because, so far as my imagination can carry me, it’s only two things according to the umbrella of what we would call Christian perspectives. The bread and wine is either bread and wine, or it’s not simple bread and wine. It either is or it isn’t.

If you wrote me a third (less plausible) perspective on the level of a definition, as if someone believed “bread wasn’t bread, it’s just data, every time you said bread I heard data,” I wouldn’t consider your views unjustified on the grounds that someone else had a different opinion.

Whereas if you other guy had just finished watching the Matrix and he was really high, I’d consider his viewpoint unjustified

He failed to realise that by removing all other authority, EVERYONE else was free to do the same! And they did! They have been in schism ever since.

I never really understood why the common argument that the Protestants are divided into 40,000,000,000,000+ different denominations isn’t actually a gentle slight against the Roman Catholic church (as many of these places are an indirect or direct product of her.) Replying “if you didn’t leave you’d still be here” makes sense, that’s a truism, but that’s true for any organisation we reject or are denied entry into.

I don’t think less of the Roman Catholic Church because people abandoned her, no more than I think poorly of any one Protestant church for people dividing her pews. I’ve always felt the sword cut both ways.

If the reply is that an overriding, powerful, singular divine (yet earthly) institute can put checks and balances on these wacky outlaw believers and their fruity ideas, my first thought is that it hasn’t worked so far. Even great heroes, people who are called “the father of the Catholic Church” (Saint Augustine) had wildly alien views to every modern Roman catholic I’ve ever met. He wasn’t called a one man schism or an inventor despite his portrait of God being the kind of thing that Calvin and Luther drew from.

So, with such radically different views of God, yet many men are described as Roman Catholics, the line of orthodoxy appears to simply be who they’re prepared to bend knee to (not their actual religious beliefs.) It seems like the spiritual Wild West even with the mega power authority.

So By what authority do you think "your version" of the truth is correct?
All have "thinking" apparatus.

I think because our thinking faculties are God given they’re generally reliable. I believe God is the God of truth and He’s revealed Himself to His creation in a way that we can understand.

Just like how you can generally understand my message without an overseer.

ON TOPIC: I think what would help is if people could describe a distinction with a different between Sola and Prima Scriptura. I’ve read people teach Prima scripture means scripture first, but that’s no different from my earlier definition of sola Scriptura. So if ignoring my definition helps, please do, but for the sake of defending the topics purpose, is there a recognisable distinction between the two? I don’t feel enough has been said to defend or advance Prima Scriptura.

 

[concretecamper]

So By what authority do you think "your version" of the truth is correct?

This is the major problem with the approach of SS.

Over on another thread, we had someone (a Sola Scripturist) say that Anglicans are not Sola Scripturists because they dont follow scripture because they teach the acceptability of homosexual marraige. This in turn extends to most if not all main line protestant communities.

No Catholic would argue whether or not scripture is reliable. It all comes down to how each individual twists scripture to meet their needs. SS doesn't necessarily fail on the premise, it fails miserably on the application.

Think about, the issue of homosexual marraige has eternal consequences. Why would God want a system so ambiguous as SS.