Prima Scriptura and Sola Scriptura?

[Cormack]

It was only a comment to the effect that when we consider what is called "Tradition" in the Catholic churches, we are talking about something that is believed in, rightly or wrongly, because the history of that particular belief can be traced. That's what proves it, the advocates say.

Pardon, Albion. I took the statement “Absolutely, they can be!” As a direct reply to my statement “Traditions...can’t be properly understood, accepted, defended or justified without the use of our God given faculties.“ So far much of what I’m writing is true by definition. They’re really very boring plain things.

because the history of that particular belief can be traced.

I 100% agree with you. There’s an attempted argument from historic documents and definitions of ancient terms which lead to churches insisting they’re the rightful successors of Christ or Peter or whomever.

Still the entire appeal to those sources and an appeal to historic methodology lands anybody using those methods as a faithful adherent to the truth value of those methods. They have just exercised their freedom to think. Congrats to them.

Now if there’s ever an area of disagreement, who’s responsible for casting the deciding vote, sources and methodology currently being justified by your own God given reason, or Rome?

Now before anybody jumps in to write “that’s unfair, all of the evidence agrees with Rome!” I’m only asking as a thought experiment to find where everybody lands.

Would our God given rational assume a backseat to any institutes claim to holding authority (any institute, because I don’t mean to pick on Catholics, it’s just been the flow of things )?

 

[BNR32FAN]

What is the difference between Prima Scriptura and Sola Scriptura?

sola scriptura means that the scriptures are the only authority on God’s word and prima scriptura means that the scriptures are the primary or final authority on God’s word. So with sola scriptura nothing new can be added to God’s word by the Church, with prima scriptura additions can be made so long as they do not directly contradict the scriptures.

Personally I tend to lean towards prima scriptura because the scriptures came from the church. The authors of the scriptures were the church itself, they didn’t have the New Testament to quote when they wrote the New Testament. They were led by the Holy Spirit, Jesus’ teachings, and first hand experience when they wrote the New Testament. I think it’s most likely that this has not ceased and that the Holy Spirit is and always will guide Jesus’ church.

 

[Mountainmike]

Or take another example.
Baptism.
It is either essential or not for salvation,
If it is essential the validity of it matters.
So the process matters to validity and life.

Yet Christians of different groups dispute the necessity, function, and process.

All with exactly the same scriptures.
Some have the right meaning and so word of God.
Others just have words.

Only by study of tradition and authority is it possible to determine Gods meaning.

So Sola scriptura is demonstrably a falasy.
Provable historically, scripturally and by simple logic.

all view scripture through a lens of tradition.

Traditions which can’t be properly understood, accepted, defended or justified without the use of our God given faculties.



Resulting in my reply about the weakness of the common denominations criticism against the Protestant churches, which you resisted by writing you didn’t bring denominations and numbers into the discussion. You appear to believe without using the common listed number of denominations or without writing the word denomination you’re not repeating that same old argument. You were reusing and slapping a coat of paint on those same ideas by your use and introduction of the whole schism point.

You don’t need to be writing my exact vocabulary to be making the same argument in principle.

“BTW I haven’t referred to numbers of denominations,”

Yes you have. You have referenced many denominations. That’s an unspecified number of denominations. Unspecified numbers are still numbers of denominations, the number simply isn’t being defined. More than a couple (a couple is two,) instead you wrote “Your fellow christians of many denominations.....all come to poles opposite conclusions about what scripture means.“ Maybe you won’t accept it’s a point involving numbers of denominations until you’ve actually shared a statistic. Either way you’re referencing denominations, schisms, many amounts of denominations in fact.



Oh so there’s a sola Scriptura moment here. The scripture alone makes the seriousness of profaning the Eucharist plain and clear. That’s very convenient. So to recap, defining sola Scriptura is “unworkable,” impossible maybe, however Corinthians alone is clear to establish the seriousness of certain propositions. Part of the interpretation would have to be “you” by default, so when you write “not me or a council” yes maybe not a council, but you’re in the equation no doubt (you’re not a bot.)

“John 6 either does or does not say the eucharist is a life and death matter.”

Unless the Eucharist as we define it isn’t part of John 6, therefore you’d be smuggling in the entire Roman Catholic concept whole cloth and misinterpreting Jesus’ teaching the entire time. Poisoning the conversation before it’s began. I’d love to go through John 6 with you here but there’s a couple of obstacles. Firstly that’s detracting from the aim of the thread, going deep into the matter would be disrespectful to the host and unhelpful in terms of thinking through the topic uninterrupted.

Secondly how’s the conversation between us even possible when there’s no infallible institute placing another man upon a golden throne to interpret and define our exchange (his unkempt heavenly eyebrows and officially authorised pope skirt blowing in the wind!)

Once again are you capable of understanding, interpreting and replying to my messages online, periodical Catholic publications, epic novels, or even books written in obscure languages, but you’re unable to understand Gods Bible made for the whole world? It’s noticeable that you comment about your questions not being answered only to neglect so many of mine.

Honestly when I reply you’ve got to be part of the decision process, that doesn’t appear to be a particularly controversial viewpoint. Whereas using air quotes on the word “thinking” does strike me as strange and self defeating. I can only see your position as defeating itself.



Regardless of how people are interpreting everybody has Gods work. The word is always Gods word just like how the Ark was always Gods ark even when people thought it wasn’t. If a monkey steals your power tools, regardless of his inability to use or understand their fine motor parts, he has your power tools. Yes some people could be misunderstanding the words of God, and as a consequence of that Gods message which He intends to communicate by those words has been obscured.

Still the deficiency lays with either Gods word or mans will, I’d never write God isn’t clear in His word though. Would you write that Gods Bible isn’t clear? The entire exchange only highlights that God given thinking facilities are a non negotiable must have for those of us being judged.



Remember from earlier in my message. You don’t have to use the same vocabulary to be making an in principled argument that’s the same as other arguments. In the same way I don’t have to write about the exact same faith group because the subject matters are the same on the level of argument. Your argument to do with interpretation is definitional in nature, any argument from any religious (or even non religious) subject that involves disagreement on the definitional is an analog to our conversation. They’re the same argument in principle even without the vocabulary.

You made the same mistake by trying to extract yourself from the denominations argument because you mistakenly believed you didn’t use the word denominations or cite a number of denominations. Writing disparagingly about Luther and using the word schism or writing about interpretive differences brings you into the field of denominational differences and definitions.

It’s like a man complaining about the state of soccer, to which another man replies agreeing, pointing out that LA Galaxy ruined football in the states.

Wow now, who said anything about football?! Don’t straw man me and change the topic from soccer to football

^^^^ That’s the kind of thing you’re doing when you write about Luther and schism but then try to extract yourself from Protestantism and it’s denominations.



Not on the level of the rules of logic and logical categories. Not on the level of “thinking.”



Why would using sola Scriptura mean losing out on historical context? With everyone posting the definition that sola Scriptura means = “the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith,” that definition wouldn’t exclude reading or being informed by anything else in terms of historic context.

I mean it’s best not to hold my breath on getting an answer, but it’s certainly important to understand that we don’t need to make every source an infallible source just to believe in the material contained therein. We don’t have to canonise or sanctify Tacitus or Josephus or our morning paper for fear of missing out on vital historical context.

 

[Albion]

Or take another example.
Baptism.
It is either essential or not for salvation,
If it is essential the validity of it matters.
So the process matters to validity and life.

Yet Christians of different groups dispute the necessity, function, and process.

For what may be the hundredth time, Sola Scriptura does not provide a system for interpreting Scripture.

It is a principle which asserts that Scripture is the ultimate authority for determining essential doctrine.

Just as with Holy Tradition or Prophesy or Papal Infallibility or any of the alternate systems that other churches use instead of Scripture Alone, humans come up with different interpretations of what they find, and, of course, not all of them can be correct.

 

[Mountainmike]

For the hundredth time, They are not alternate systems.

Tradition and authority resolve ambiguity in meaning of scripture.
Scripture therefore cannot stand alone.

We see the disaster that even Luther lamented of trying to divorce scripture from The basis to interpret it.

Your version of tradition is articles. The faith handed to you. And because we know who wrote them and when, your tradition is certainly man made, and certainly did not start in the first century.

For what may be the hundredth time, Sola Scriptura does not provide a system for interpreting Scripture.

It is a principle which asserts that Scripture is the ultimate authority for determining essential doctrine.

Just as with Holy Tradition or Prophesy or Papal Infallibility or any of the alternate systems that other churches use instead of Scripture Alone, humans come up with different interpretations of what they find, and, of course, not all of them can be correct.

 

[Albion]

For the hundredth time, They are not alternate systems.

That's just ridiculous. Yes, so-called Tradition includes Scripture, but it is a different authority system since it puts custom, legend, and human opinion on the same level as the revealed word of God!

Rejecting that innovation is what gave rise to the demand that Scripture Alone be understood as unique in authority when it comes to essential doctrine.

 

[Mountainmike]

No matter how often you repeat that, it will not make it true.

Nor will it make scripture intelligible without tradition to resolve ambiguity.

That's just ridiculous. Yes, so-called Tradition includes Scripture, but it is a different authority system since it puts custom, legend, and human opinion on the same level as the revealed word of God!

Rejecting that innovation is what gave rise to the demand that Scripture Alone be understood as unique in authority when it comes to essential doctrine.

 

[Cormack]

Or take another example.
Baptism.
It is either essential or not for salvation,
If it is essential the validity of it matters.
So the process matters to validity and life.

Why bog down the exchange with more concepts when we’ve already made a breakthrough with the plain, clear, self explanatory dangers of “profaning the Eucharist,” as explained by Corinthians. No councils, popes, traditions, yogis or quorums required (I’ve been reliably informed.) Corinthians alone is sufficiently clear in some aspects.

Would you neglect the sufficiently clear portions of scripture if told to by an institute? You admit to the clear portions being there.

Can you even claim to know clear scripture from unclear scripture without an infallible authority informing you?

Yet Christians of different groups dispute the necessity, function, and process.

All with exactly the same scriptures.
Some have the right meaning and so word of God.
Others just have words.

Everybody has the word of God, feel free to revisit my previously unanswered message for a reply. In the case of differing groups who dispute with one another, that’s as it was with the nation of Israel during the earthly ministry days of Christ. Yet Jesus held everyone accountable for their disobedience to the simply stated, already widely recognised rule of scripture. Acknowledging many of their answers when questioned on the meaning of scripture. In addition to condemning the nullifying effect of some traditions and the wickedness of men who used them for their own gain.

Same scriptures, different people arriving at sometimes very different opinions, different traditions too, almost as if people were the cause and deciding factor in the differences of people. Unfortunately, depending on your religious perspective, there’s no opinions available to you on the above topics except for that which your institute green lights.

Only by study of tradition and authority is it possible to determine Gods meaning.

That’s a leap right there, your conclusion doesn’t follow even if people agreed with the premise. That’s the rock, paper scissors approach to the entire exercise. It’s circular and arbitrary and an abandonment of “simple logic,” not to mention an escape from a persons own responsibility before God. Your authority and their sanctioned traditions aren’t “solving ambiguity” in the scriptures but rather inventing ambiguity as it suits their needs.

Your flip flopping and changing the subject from Corinthians onto baptism is proof enough of that, the Bible is only “clear” if that’s helpful or useful to your current argument.

There’s an interpretive principle teaching how a clear piece of scripture interprets an unclear portion of scripture, having already admitted to the presence of clear scripture in the Bible you now have a reliable method to resolve any difficulties in reading the Bible.

These things commend themselves to Gods created mind, not the will of men, though the same men who make to no effect the commendable things attempt to hijack whatever is commendable to the mind so that they might replace it with themselves. The invention of ambiguity where there is none justifies the need for mans dominance over you.

If any man believes that Pope Francis and Augustine (both supposed Roman Catholic) share some semblance of a religion I’d urge them to reread from both men. Their institutional structure hasn’t stopped schisms and heresy for so long as they’ve existed, neither outside their doors or inside. The ambiguity problem was an invention and the supposed authoritarian antidote to the heresy problem has produced everything from false religions to heretical popes. Your perfect fix is failing in real time and we’re still being told it’s a grand solution. That’s incredible.

So Sola scriptura is demonstrably a falasy.
Provable historically, scripturally and by simple logic.

all view scripture through a lens of tradition.

If it’s demonstrably false then you should be demonstrating the falseness, instead you simply assert the falseness, deny and resist that there’s definitional meaning to it and evade issues to the contrary.

Men, women and children already indoctrinated into an infallible institutes orbit like that of the Watchtower organisation or the RCC do indeed challenge you to study up on the history, the content of scripture and there’s even an appeal that you search your own senses. Believers who do this are victims of a powerful form of double think.

“What seems to me white, I will believe black if the hierarchical Church so defines.”

^^^^ A quote attributed to the Jesuit priest Ignatius of Loyola. How eager is anyone reading to submit their thinking faculties to the above quotation?

Perhaps so comfortable that logical, scriptural and historical considerations are benched in favour of the new ultimate authority in determining essential doctrine.

You’re being asked to supplant every belief that’s yours and submit yourself to the authority of an institute that’s supposed to have uninfallibly and ambiguously reasoned infallibly and plainly in a circle back to itself.

I’ll ask again “if there’s ever an area of disagreement, who’s responsible for casting the deciding vote, sources and methodology currently being justified by your own God given reason, or Rome?”

 

[Albion]

No matter how often you repeat that, it will not make it true.

I'm sorry, but Sola Scriptura means Scripture Alone is the rule of faith.

I know that people who belong to denominations that do not recognize the supremacy of Scripture have come up with all sorts of objections, but when they don't even deal with Sola Scriptura....

 

[dms1972]

I am find McGrath's book I mentioned up the thread helpful here. An important distinction or contrast he makes is how sola scriptura was understood by the radical reformation (anabaptists), and how it was understood by the magisterial reformation (Luther, Calvin etc.)

It was the radicals who said every individual had the right to interpret scripture as he pleased, subject to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This differed from the magisterial reformation which did not outright reject tradition and for whom the idea of a "traditional interpretation of scripture" was perfectly acceptable provided that this traditional interpretation could be justified. And who were aware of the threat of individualism, stressing the traditional interpretation of the Church were this traditional interpretation was deemed correct.

The radicals placed the private judgement of the individual above the corporate judgement of the Christian Church concerning the interpretation. Calvin and Luther by contrast did not reject the traditional doctrines of the Divinity of Christ, and the Trinity held by the Fathers, whom they regarded as generally reliable interpreters of Scripture.

While there are variation within the mainstream of the Reformation: Zwingli is closer to the Radical postion than Calvin is, while Luther is closer to the Catholic position, none were prepared according to McGrath to abandon the concept of a traditional interpretation of scripture in favour of the radical alternative.

If McGrath is correct then this is very helpful analysis in understanding how the mainstream of the Reformation understood sola scriptura, clearly they were not utterly consistent in its application.