Sola scriptura or prima scriptura

[Anastasia]

which do you follow and why?

My personal view is prima scriptura*. I believe God reveals Himself and his truth in a myriad of ways, however Scripture just happens to be the most direct way for us humans to comprehend. The heavens declare His glory, and we are given minds to seek truth. (Come let Us reason together, after all.) I also recognize that I don't have expertise the way that great theologians did, nor do I live close to the time of Christ, so I can learn from those who were closer to that time and those that knew the culture/language better.

 

[Dr. Walter]

which do you follow and why?

My personal view is prima scriptura*. I believe God reveals Himself and his truth in a myriad of ways, however Scripture just happens to be the most direct way for us humans to comprehend. The heavens declare His glory, and we are given minds to seek truth. (Come let Us reason together, after all.) I also recognize that I don't have expertise the way that great theologians did, nor do I live close to the time of Christ, so I can learn from those who were closer to that time and those that knew the culture/language better.

I do not believe tradition or natural revelation is equal in value as scripture but scritpure is "more sure" than either (2 Pet. 1:19) and is "inspired." Tradition is not inspired and is contaminated by uninspiried ideas of men.

Scripture is final in authority for doctrine and practice (Isa. 8:20) over dead men's ideas and tradition (Isa. 8:19; Mt. 15) and is the completed written revelation of God until Christ's revelation from heaven (Isa. 8:16-17; Rev. 21:18-20).

 

[12strings]

I would say that although God does give us revelation through creation, and possibly through unique, unusual ways sometimes. The Scripture should be our "Sola" basis for faith and practice. That is, these other things must be weighted against scripture. A Book that teaches about the resurection can enlighten me, but I can't lean on it they way I lean on scriptures.

So I would say God communicates "prima Scritpura", but we are told to that the things we set our feet on, that we base our lives on, should be "sola scriptura."

 

[billwald]

> and is the completed written revelation of God until Christ's revelation from heaven (Isa. 8:16-17; Rev. 21:18-20).

Then God may not give us new information until Jesus returns in the form you expect him to return? What do you do with the statement about being visited by but not recognizing angels?

 

[Gup20]

I do not believe tradition or natural revelation is equal in value as scripture but scritpure is "more sure" than either (2 Pet. 1:19) and is "inspired." Tradition is not inspired and is contaminated by uninspiried ideas of men.

Scripture is final in authority for doctrine and practice (Isa. 8:20) over dead men's ideas and tradition (Isa. 8:19; Mt. 15) and is the completed written revelation of God until Christ's revelation from heaven (Isa. 8:16-17; Rev. 21:18-20).

I agree with Dr. Walter. Scripture is absolutely the final in authority.

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

Act 17:11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.
​

The brethren in Berea were considered noble for proving what was said by men in scripture.

 

[WestminsterMan]

I agree with Dr. Walter. Scripture is absolutely the final in authority.

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

Nope - it doesn't say scripture alone.
Is it inspired? Yes!
Is it profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness? Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes!

Is it the only authority? No - and 2 Ti 3:16 never states that it is.

Act 17:11Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

The brethren in Berea were considered noble for proving what was said by men in scripture.

Yes they were considered noble - however, they themselves didn't rely solely on the written word to prove the validity of Paul's preachings. Those in Thessalonica did rely solely on scripture and came to the opposite conclusion!

Hmmmmm...

WM

 

[Dr. Walter]

Nope - it doesn't say scripture alone.
Is it inspired? Yes!
Is it profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness? Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes!

Is it the only authority? No - and 2 Ti 3:16 never states that it is.



Yes they were considered noble - however, they themselves didn't rely solely on the written word to prove the validity of Paul's preachings. Those in Thessalonica did rely solely on scripture and came to the opposite conclusion!

Hmmmmm...

WM

Tradition is not on the same level with scritpure as scripture is "MORE SURE" than apostolic tradition (2 Pet 1:17-19) and ONLY Scripture is given by inspiration for the PUPROSE that "the man of God" may be THROUGHLY FURNISHED [not partially furnished only completed by Tradition] unto "ALL" good works in regard to doctrine, instruction, reproof, correction.

It does not take a rocket scientist or too much intelligence to understand why apostolic tradition is INFERIOR to inspired Scriptures. All one has to do is to look at "the traditions of the elders" or traditions passed down to the Jews to see they became CORRUPTED so that neither Christ or the apostles EVER quoted "rabbi......" at any time anywhere.

Now, please identify "the man of God" in 2 Tim. 3:17

You played this silly game with me before but I am not going to allow you to do it again. Is "the man of God" in 2 Tim. 3:17 ONLY Timothy and NONE OTHER or is Paul claiming this is the design of inspired scriptures for each and every "man of God."?

 

[WestminsterMan]

Tradition is not on the same level with scritpure as scripture is "MORE SURE" than apostolic tradition (2 Pet 1:17-19) and ONLY Scripture is given by inspiration for the PUPROSE that "the man of God" may be THROUGHLY FURNISHED [not partially furnished only completed by Tradition] unto "ALL" good works in regard to doctrine, instruction, reproof, correction.

It does not take a rocket scientist or too much intelligence to understand why apostolic tradition is INFERIOR to inspired Scriptures. All one has to do is to look at "the traditions of the elders" or traditions passed down to the Jews to see they became CORRUPTED so that neither Christ or the apostles EVER quoted "rabbi......" at any time anywhere.

You're having an argument with yourself -- again! Go back and read my last post and take a breath (or perhaps even a valium). I said that the verse used to prove sola scripture doesn't prove sola scriptura at all. I didn't say that Tradition was superior to scripture. And now to quote you back doc:
"It does not take a rocket scientist or too much intelligence to understand... " what pople write rather than infering something not in the actual text. If you want to construct and then destruct a straw man then go for it. I have better things to do. However, what I said stands:

2 Ti 3:16 doesn't prove scripture alone.
Is it inspired? Yes!
Is it profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness? Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes!

Is it the only authority? No - and 2 Ti 3:16 never states that it is.

Now, please identify "the man of God" in 2 Tim. 3:17
You played this silly game with me before but I am not going to allow you to do it again.

Do I detect a note of pomposity there doc? Look - I really don't see how you can allow me to do anything, or not allow me to do anything here. If you think you can have a civil debate and act like an adult then I'm up for it. I think most people here find your propensity for name calling just plain silly and actually does nothing but weaken your positions.

Have a nice day there, doc.

WM

 

[Gup20]

Is it the only authority? No - and 2 Ti 3:16 never states that it is.

...

Yes they were considered noble - however, they themselves didn't rely solely on the written word to prove the validity of Paul's preachings. Those in Thessalonica did rely solely on scripture and came to the opposite conclusion!

Hmmmmm...

WM

I'm reminded of two passages:

Rev 22:18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;
19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.​

and also,

1Cr 13:8 Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.
9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part;
10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.​

We can see several principles at work here. First, that the scriptures have higher authority than the word of men.... the passage from Acts 17:11 shows that Scripture stands as a judge for truth over the authority of man.

And secondly that prophecy and knowledge will all be done away with... they are temporary and partial revelations of truth. But the word of God will not pass away.

 

[Gup20]

Do I detect a note of pomposity there doc? Look - I really don't see how you can allow me to do anything, or not allow me to do anything here. If you think you can have a civil debate and act like an adult then I'm up for it. I think most people here find your propensity for name calling just plain silly and actually does nothing but weaken your positions.

Have a nice day there, doc.

WM

I, too, find that ad hominem attacks only demonstrate weakness in one's argument. Walt, you really do need to remain civil and not digress into the name calling and insults.

 

[Anastasia]

If I may add, Prima Scriptura doesn't mean that something is added equal to scripture. It means that there is a source of authority that is below scripture*. There is a different view that says that tradition is equal to scripture. This third view is not the one I meant to bring up as I would be surprised if anyone here held that view.

*Prima scriptura is a doctrine that says canonized scripture is "first" or "above all" sources of divine revelation.
Implicitly, this view acknowledges that, besides canonical scripture, there are other guides for what a believer should believe, and how he should live, such as the created order, traditions, charismatic gifts, mystical insight, angelic visitations, conscience, common sense, the views of experts, the spirit of the times or something else. Prima scriptura suggests that ways of knowing or understanding God and his will, that do not originate from canonized scripture, are in a second place, perhaps helpful in interpreting that scripture, but testable by the canon and correctable by it, if they seem to contradict the scriptures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_scriptura

 

[Dr. Walter]

If I may add, Prima Scriptura doesn't mean that something is added equal to scripture. It means that there is a source of authority that is below scripture*. There is a different view that says that tradition is equal to scripture. This third view is not the one I meant to bring up as I would be surprised if anyone here held that view.

*Prima scriptura is a doctrine that says canonized scripture is "first" or "above all" sources of divine revelation.
Implicitly, this view acknowledges that, besides canonical scripture, there are other guides for what a believer should believe, and how he should live, such as the created order, traditions, charismatic gifts, mystical insight, angelic visitations, conscience, common sense, the views of experts, the spirit of the times or something else. Prima scriptura suggests that ways of knowing or understanding God and his will, that do not originate from canonized scripture, are in a second place, perhaps helpful in interpreting that scripture, but testable by the canon and correctable by it, if they seem to contradict the scriptures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_scriptura

This is nothing but words of no value, and distinctions without practical meaning, since scripture is not FINAL AUTHORITY according to either doctrine and therefore "prima" is reduced to no practical distinction whatsoever.

The clear teaching of scripture is that the scriptures are final in authority in comparison with uninspired DEAD men's opinions as source of faith and practice (Isa. 8:19-20) or LIVING uninspired men's opinions (2 Pet. 1:20-21) and is "MORE SURE" than apostolic oral traditions even while the Apostles are alive (2 Pet. 1:19; 2 Tim. 3:15-16) as scriptures alone are sufficient for doctrine, instruction correction, reproof so that "the man of God may be THROUGHLY furnished unto ALL good works" without so much as mention or inclusion of traditions.

 

[billwald]

It should be obvious to anyone with sufficient brain cells that Sola Scriptura is insufficient BECAUSE people who "believe" it can't agree to what the bible "says." 90% of the arguments on this list are generated BECAUSE they are interpreting the scripture using secondary documents and tradition.

An exact parallel is people on this who claim "Sola Constitution" and then complain when the Supreme Court disagrees with their tradition and secondary documents.

 

[Anastasia]

This is nothing but words of no value, and distinctions without practical meaning, since scripture is not FINAL AUTHORITY according to either doctrine and therefore "prima" is reduced to no practical distinction whatsoever.

The clear teaching of scripture is that the scriptures are final in authority in comparison with uninspired DEAD men's opinions as source of faith and practice (Isa. 8:19-20) or LIVING uninspired men's opinions (2 Pet. 1:20-21) and is "MORE SURE" than apostolic oral traditions even while the Apostles are alive (2 Pet. 1:19; 2 Tim. 3:15-16) as scriptures alone are sufficient for doctrine, instruction correction, reproof so that "the man of God may be THROUGHLY furnished unto ALL good works" without so much as mention or inclusion of traditions.

I have never disputed that Scripture was the highest authority and more sure than anything else. You don't quite get where I am coming from, and I think that trying to explain that to you would be a waste of time and energy, and lead proof-texting than real open discussion. Good bye.

 

[David Lamb]

It should be obvious to anyone with sufficient brain cells that Sola Scriptura is insufficient BECAUSE people who "believe" it can't agree to what the bible "says." 90% of the arguments on this list are generated BECAUSE they are interpreting the scripture using secondary documents and tradition.

An exact parallel is people on this who claim "Sola Constitution" and then complain when the Supreme Court disagrees with their tradition and secondary documents.

Not obvious at all, Bill, in my opinion. (Should I get my brain cells counted? :laugh

I do agree that there are differences in understanding among those who do hold to "Sola Scriptura", but surely you cannot be suggesting (can you?) that such differences are due to any lack in God's Word.

As a Brit, I am not able to comment on your "Sola Constitution" parallel.

 

[Matt Black]

David, I respectfully disagree: SS adherents disagree on fundamental issues such as soteriology (Calvinists -v- Arminians), as well as perhaps more secondary but nevertheless important issues that affect how we function as Christians such as pneumatology (cessationists -v- charismatics), salvation history/ schema (dispies -v- covenanters), ecclesiology (episcopal -v- presbyterian -v- congregational and independent -v- connexional), eschatology (I will be here all day on that one!) etc etc.

This doesn't mean that there is anything 'wrong' with Scripture, simply that it manifestly cannot be the sole authority. Supreme, yes, but there has also to be an authoritative interpretative mechanism, and that has to be one clearly 'other' that 'me, Jesus and my Bible'.

 

[David Lamb]

David, I respectfully disagree: SS adherents disagree on fundamental issues such as soteriology (Calvinists -v- Arminians), as well as perhaps more secondary but nevertheless important issues that affect how we function as Christians such as pneumatology (cessationists -v- charismatics), salvation history/ schema (dispies -v- covenanters), ecclesiology (episcopal -v- presbyterian -v- congregational and independent -v- connexional), eschatology (I will be here all day on that one!) etc etc.

This doesn't mean that there is anything 'wrong' with Scripture, simply that it manifestly cannot be the sole authority. Supreme, yes, but there has also to be an authoritative interpretative mechanism, and that has to be one clearly 'other' that 'me, Jesus and my Bible'.

You and I have argued (respectfully, I hope!! ) about this several times in the past, for example in these threads:

The Great Protestant Fallacy" (September 2007)

Waldes of Lyon's Profession of Faith (September 2007)

Jesus Repudiates Mariolatry (November 2007)
​

You wrote in the Waldes thread, post 110:

As I have said, sola Scriptura does (inevitably) create disparate groups of Christians believing things diametrically opposed to each other. You ask 'who decides what is heretical'; my answer would be that given by the Church for its first millenium at least: all the bishops in succession to the Apostles appointed by Christ as God-ordained representatives of the whole Church.

To which I replied in post 112:

Which church, Matt? How do you even know that the idea of apostolic succession is right, or that the notions of bishops (in the sense used in the Anglican church and other episcopal churches) being men responsible for a "diocese" of local churches is right?
​

From your present post, you still seem to be of the opinion that "the true church" is the only authoratative interpretative mechanism by which a true understanding of the bible is obtained.

There seem to be some difficulties with that, though. If this entity "the True Church" is the only way we can understand what the bible teaches, the very definition of what a "church", would be made (or at least interpreted) by the entity itself.

Again quoting myself from the thread about Waldes of Lyon:

You and I could continue "arguing in circles" forever, because we obviously do not agree on the matter of authority. With you, it is "The True Church(TM)". With me, it is God's Word. With your beliefs (at least as I understand them) it was "necessary" to hold these Councils - comings together of representatives of "The True Church(TM)" to decide on differences. Not so for those who believe in the sufficiency and inerrancy of God's Word.
​

 

[Matt Black]

Thanks for the reply, David. I think, in answer to your question posed above, that - unless you are a Trail of Blood aficionado - the historical fact is that the Undivided Church was the only show in town until 1054. Things went awry after that, granted, and it is now impossible to point to any latter-day ecclesial body and say "You are the One True Church, and I win my £5", but there is a sufficiency of accurate Scriptural interpretation up to 1054 for us all to get by on if we want to.

Now, you still haven't answered my point about the shortcomings of SS referred to in my last post.

 

[DHK]

Thanks for the reply, David. I think, in answer to your question posed above, that - unless you are a Trail of Blood aficionado - the historical fact is that the Undivided Church was the only show in town until 1054. Things went awry after that, granted, and it is now impossible to point to any latter-day ecclesial body and say "You are the One True Church, and I win my £5", but there is a sufficiency of accurate Scriptural interpretation up to 1054 for us all to get by on if we want to.

Now, you still haven't answered my point about the shortcomings of SS referred to in my last post.

There is no "one true church," a misuse of the Biblical usage of "church" or ekklesia, which can only be translated. The NT knows only of assemblies or local churches. There never was any "one true church." Paul established approximately 100 churches in three missionary journeys--not a denomination.

 

[DHK]

I have never disputed that Scripture was the highest authority and more sure than anything else. You don't quite get where I am coming from, and I think that trying to explain that to you would be a waste of time and energy, and lead proof-texting than real open discussion. Good bye.

Perhaps you don't get where he is coming from. Sola scriptura cannot mean anything else but sola scriptura--only the Scriptures. The sooner you understand that the better off you (and perhaps the rest of us) will be. There is only one inspired authority--the Bible. There are no other authorities in matters of faith and practice. There are authorities in math, science, history, etc. But our only authority in faith and doctrine is the Bible. It is all sufficient. Tradition is not an authority. It is completely unreliable. Only Scripture is reliable, inspired, and final.