#prima scriptura

[idylls-of-the-divine-romance]

I think the Sola Scriptura is dying out of me.

[questions-for-christians]

I've been recently doing a lot of research on religions and came across the concept of sola scriptura, the idea that the Bible has sole authority over spiritual matters. how do you feel about that? my gut is telling me that that shouldn't be how we base our beliefs, but I'd love to hear other opinions!

My instinct is to lean towards Prima Scriptura - that the scriptures are the most important. I explored sola scriptura on my Wordpress blog where I largely failed to come to any firm conclusions at all.

My understanding is that Sola Scriptura was something that the Reformation brought us. Which explains why it is common in charismatic evangelical circles with the infallibility of scripture doctrines.

Even if the scripture is infallible (I simply don’t know for certain) then they would still be subject to fallible readership and therefore fallible interpretations. So regardless of the fallibility and authority of scripture above all things, our own inability to read them accurately and without error makes the whole point academic.

My main concern with Sola Scriptura is that it comes with the idea that no new information can be had. Yet the scriptures were compiled over time. To say “that’s it, God’s finished telling us stuff” is more arrogant than I am willing to be.

I am certain that scripture is important and has value. Beyond that, I remain ignorant.

[israeldevotion-blog]

Prima Scriptura vs Sola Scriptura

Most Protestants adhere to Sola Scriptura or “by Scriptures alone”, which refers to the Holy Scripture as the only source and final authority of doctrine.

We believe that the Bible is sufficient to know salvation and to live a Christian life. This is contrasted with Sacred Tradition, the belief that traditions handed down by the early church have the same authority as the Scriptures, a belief which many Roman Catholics uphold.

However, there are subjects that are not sufficiently addressed or specifically spelled out in the Bible. How about falling under the anointing when laying hands, holy laughter or silver dust? There is no verse that explicitly mention these manifestations of the Holy Spirit. However, we believe in these because of experience.

What about gambling and drugs? The Bible does not explicitly mention these vices, nor does it condemn them as sin. But we know that “all things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify.” (1 Cor 10:23).

From this verse, we deduce that a habit of gambling and taking drugs are detrimental for Christian living and should be avoided. We believe this because of reason.

And yet there some traditions that we hold on to that are not specifically mentioned in the Bible, such as the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, belief in the Trinity and many more. What about the DNA of City Harvest Church? Is not our DNA of discipleship, cellgroup system, etc. a modern form of tradition as well?

As such, I am inclined towards Prima Scriptura — Scripture being first or above all other sources of divine revelation, but also including common sense, charismatic gifts, tradition, a word in season and personal experiences.

The term Prima Scriptura was coined by John Wesley, the great theologian and founder of the Methodist Church. John Wesley also went on the establish the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, which states four sources of doctrine: Scripture, tradition, experience and reason.

Nope, I’m not gonna become a Methodist. But we as non-denominational Christian do adopt beliefs from varied denominations to form our doctrinal framework. And Prima Scriptura seems to be a reasonable doctrine to adopt.

[gospelofthekingdom]

"....... And let them not flatter themselves if they think they have Scripture authority for Their assertions, since the devil himself quoted Scripture, and the essence of the Scriptures is not the letter, but the meaning. Otherwise, if wefollow the letter, we too can concoct a new dogma and assert that such persons as wear shoes and have two coats must not be received into the Church." ~ Saint Jerome (AD 347-420) The Church does not rely on the Bible for its doctrine. Let's get that straight. We don’t rely on the Bible, because the Church CAME BEFORE THE NEW TESTAMENT. The New Testament came centuries after the beginning of the Church, the Bible belongs to the Church - not the Church to the Bible - so the Church does not need to find justification for its beliefs within the Bible. The Bible is the written form of Apostolic tradition, which, before it was written down, was an oral tradition. What we know about Christ we know from the oral tradition, from various letters circulating and other pieces of paper. The Bible - the canon of texts was decided by The Church - it did not drop down from heaven. The Fathers were opening the meaning of Scripture before The Church had decided the canon of Scripture. The Fathers taught from the oral tradition, from the various letters, from the tradition of Apostolic teaching.  The protestant view that all sprang from the heavenly Bible and that we must follow the letter of Scripture is just wrong. The Church existed for centuries with only the Septuagint as Scripture. And the Septuagint, not the Jewish Masoretic text, is what Jesus and the Apostles quoted from throughout the New Testament. The Septuagint - as evidenced from the Dead Sea Scrolls and other documents is the oldest Jewish tradition, far older than the Masoretic text. The New Testament is the Apostolic Tradition, the tradition that The Church lived by for centuries before the canon of New Testament writings was proclaimed by The Church."

-Abbot Michael

[gospelofthekingdom]

On the day of Pentecost the Church was born and yet there were no Gospels as we know them today. It would not be a theological exaggeration to assert that the Church would be the Church in Her fullness even if She did not possess the New Testament. For many raised on the Reformational principle of sola scriptura this may seem a radical--even heretical--statement. ...[T]here was a time when the Church did not possess this corpus of inspired writing and yet the Church existed in Her fullness, Christians experienced the truth of the faith in all its fullness.

Fr. Georges Florovsky, The Byzantine Fathers of the Fifth Century, Vol 8 of Collected works as recorded in "The Church, Tradition, Scripture, Truth, and Christian Life [p. 15]

[gospelofthekingdom]

Kevin Allen speaks with the William F. Orr Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, Dr Edith M. Humphrey, on the relationship between the oral and written traditions of the Bible and how the various Christian faith traditions have made a relatively modern dichotomy between Scripture and Holy Tradition.

This great call-in program on Scripture and Tradition aired yesterday [May 11th].  I recommend making time to listen to it.

[gospelofthekingdom]

Therefore brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter. From this it is clear that they did not hand over everything by letter, but there was much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. Let us regard the Tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it Tradition? Seek no further.

Homilies on the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians 4:2 by St. John Chrysostom

[gospelofthekingdom]

"The Orthodox Church firmly believes that all Scripture is inspired by God.  She is steadfastly committed to the authority of the Scriptures as the normative record of God's Self-revelation to mankind.  She is equally committed to the principle that the text of the Scripture is not to be altered, either by addition or diminution.  She recognizes that the Scriptures are a unique witness, inspired by God Himself, and must not be altered in order to 'get in line with the times.'

However, the Bible -- its divine origin not withstanding -- is still a book.  It does not claim to be, all-sufficient.  The Scriptures [both Testaments] were produced within the context of God's dealing with Israel [Old and New Israel].  This context, this living relationship of God with His People, is nothing less than tradition.  Apart from this tradition, holy tradition, the Bible loses its necessary point of reference.  Treated as a 'bare text,' it becomes enslaved to whatever tradition the reader happens to bear upon it.

The Protestant insistence on sola Scriptura is not so much erroneous as it is impossible. The divinely inspired writers of the Scriptures do not claim sole-sufficiency for their writings precisely because they wrote within a specific context and expected their writings to be read within that context -- the living relationship of God with man in the Church."

Clark Carlton, The Way: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church