Sola Scripturas or Prima Scriptura, what's the reality?

[josephback]

Ok, so I 've heard a lot of non-Catholics object to the Catholic definition of Sola Scriptura as “Scripture only, nothing else”. And when I rejected Sola Fide on the Scriptures(as I had been taught to refer to and revere them), I remember a Charismatic Reformed pastor asking if I had gotten any “resources” yet, that is extra biblical helps from Protestant theologians on this issue. I replied that “I had the Bible”…

Anyway it seems to me that the term ‘Sola Scriptura’(ONLY Scripture) is used to describe what in actuality becomes ‘Prima Scriptura’(Scripture First). Does anyone in Protestant apologetica actually refer to the Scriptures without ANY “helps”(Protestant theologians, favorite pastors, etc.), and can the individual’s opinion of a particular passage really be suspended by them when reading through the Bible alone? Does the book really interpret itself and is the practice of Sola Scriptura being literally translated(i.e. “ONLY Scripture”) an unfair characterization of it by Catholics

Anyone who’s up to the challenge can bite PROTESTANTS ONLY. We know the Catholic answer"

 

[JonNC]

=josephback;8034091]Ok, so I 've heard a lot of non-Catholics object to the Catholic definition of Sola Scriptura as “Scripture only, nothing else”.

And well you should have.

And when I rejected Sola Fide on the Scriptures(as I had been taught to refer to and revere them), I remember a Charismatic Reformed pastor asking if I had gotten any “resources” yet, that is extra biblical helps from Protestant theologians on this issue. I replied that “I had the Bible”…

LOL

Anyway it seems to me that the term ‘Sola Scriptura’(ONLY Scripture) is used to describe what in actuality becomes ‘Prima Scriptura’(Scripture First).

I, personally, don’t care about the term that’s used. For me as a Lutheran, the “sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone,” Some may term that prima scriptura, Lutherans refer to it as sola scriptura, because the sola refers to this sole rule and standard.

Does anyone in Protestant apologetica actually refer to the Scriptures without ANY “helps”(Protestant theologians, favorite pastors, etc.),

Lutherans generally don’t, as we are a doctrinal Church.

and can the individual’s opinion of a particular passage really be suspended by them when reading through the Bible alone?

Not sure what this means. As a Lutheran, when considering doctrine, I can and must suspend my personal opinion and interpretation, and rely on the confessions.

Does the book really interpret itself

Yes, but that doesn’t mean that I can understnad it on my own. I rely on the teachings of the Church - and that includes the early councils, the ECF’s, in addition to the confessions.

and is the practice of Sola Scriptura being literally translated(i.e. “ONLY Scripture”) an unfair characterization of it by Catholics

Yes, and no, and I’ll accept the term “unfair” only if it doesn’t imply a negative intent). There are some who hold that position, though one might consider that *solo *scriptura. As I said above, when Lutherans use the term sola, we don’t mean that nothing else can be considered and accepted. It means that only scripture is the final norm. Think of it this way; Catholics say Scripture & Tradition are co-equals. We say that Tradition is subject to scripture. That’s the sola.

Anyone who’s up to the challenge can bite

OK, now my teeth hurt.

Jon

 

[tabbey48]

Well said, Jon!

Especially “Tradition is subject to scripture.” That is a fair description of what many Protestants believe. They accept tradition; but tradition and Scripture are not equal. Scripture would be considered more important than tradition, reason, experience, etc.

 

[GeorgeTheWild]

The Southern Baptist Convention says the following, which I would interpret as Prima Scriptura. Though the SBC does not claim doctrinal authority over its member churches so the extent to which SBC churches lean towards Prima Scriptura or Sola Scriptura varies. My church leans strongly towards Prima Scriptura.

The Scriptures
The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God’s revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.

 

[Izdaari]

I freely admit to being Prima Scriptura, not Sola Scriptura. I like to use the Wesleyan Quadrilateral (Scripture, Tradition, Reason, Experience); of those Scripture is the primary authority, but those other three definitely factor in.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

It’s been my expereince that the more radical adherents of SS (which don’t seem to be members here) believe in SS when it comes to other’s beliefs but not their own. For instance, my father in law will remind me that the word “pope” is not in the Bible but doesn’t seem to care that the word “trinity” isn’t either. I must play by the SS rules but he doesn’t.

The majority of members here who affirm sola scriptura I would place in the prima scriptura camp even if they reject the labeling. I must do it for my own sanity. Their belief is more consistant and workable than what I have come to define SS as so I must come up with a different term… BTW as workable as a Catholic like myself is willing to admit

God bless