Sola Scriptura vs. Prima Scriptura

[pokemaughan]

I made this topic for the sake of Gauntlet and I.

Here's how it started:

I would however suggest you read the book called "23 minutes in hell". It is very interesting and it gives descriptives of hell that coincide with what the bible says hell is like, except it is from a point of view where this man spent 23 minutes in hell.

Keep in mind however, that this is a work of fiction/false prophecy. The Bible is the go-to source for information regarding all things of God.

I'm inclined to believe the man who says he spent 23 minutes in hell. Why do you think God stopped talking to people after the Bible was written?

Sola Scriptura means, "by Scripture alone". SS holds the position that the Bible is the be-all-end-all of revelation, and no other source can be trusted.

Prima Scriptura means, "above all, Scripture". PS holds the position that the Bible holds the highest standard of revelation, but more revelation can come outside of it and is considered genuine so long as it is consistent with Scripture.

When I see a book like the aforementioned 23 Minutes in Hell, I see a creative Christian that wants to make money. I was introduced very early to this kind of extra-Biblical revelation and came to the conclusion that it's just a bunch of malarky, for lack of a better term.

What do you guys think? Can alleged revelation outside the Bible be genuine? Scripture and doctrine are going to be the defining answer, as opposed to reason and "common sense".

[Bryanfromiowa]

I answered prima scriptura because to me this would include sermons christian books god inspired but not scripture. I've not read the book you're speaking of so i won't comment on it but in general yes god can and does speak to us all the time outside of scripture.

[EricH]

Scripture is the only "inerrant" form of special revelation. So the distinction is not really meaningful. If we say that additional sources of revelation must line up with scripture, then they are really not adding anything new, just reiterating what scripture already says. So at the end of the day you still have Scipture as the only source.

[nebula]

I'm leery of labels. So if you want to label me I won't stop you, but I won't bind myself to one.

The Scriptures are our source and our foundation.

However, I do not believe the Lord suddenly stopped speaking to people at the end of the first century.

Do you honestly believe that all there is to know about God can be contained within a mere 66 books?

[pokemaughan]

I'm leery of labels. So if you want to label me I won't stop you, but I won't bind myself to one.

The Scriptures are our source and our foundation.

However, I do not believe the Lord suddenly stopped speaking to people at the end of the first century.

Do you honestly believe that all there is to know about God can be contained within a mere 66 books?

I didn't intend to lable anyone. I just wanted to make it fun with a poll.

Do I believe all there is to know about God can be contained within the Bible... I have to give you a resounding no on that. That doesn't necessarily mean that we can know anything beyond that... God's mysteries are God's mysteries. There's certain limits that we unforunately can't break. As mere men, our perception and capacity for understanding is very bleak, to say the least...

I want to make it clear that I do not deny spiritual experiences by any means. For example, the instant I believed in Christ I definitely felt something physical happened to me.

What I'm addressing is knowledge that is revealed outside of the Bible and if it is genuine. Humans are obviously very creative... so it's not outside of reason that a very spiritual incident or 'revelation' could be no more than your subconscience going on an adventure according to your emotions and desires.

BUT I do not claim to be correct in any event. I am only a man, after all... my opinion is only as reliable as the base it's founded on...

I think 1st Cor. 13 talks about this, at least in part, when it talks about 'when that which is perfect has come, the others will be done away', or however it goes. Some see 'perfect' as Jesus, others see it as the completed Bible.

[Guest shiloh357]

God still speaks. He has His messengers today as He always has. Having said that, I do not believe God transfers wisdom or knowledge that does not already exist in the Scriptures. This is because when we receive a word from God, we have to be able to test it against the Bible in order to verify it is from the Lord. If the Lord is transferring information that cannot be confirmed by Scripture, we have no sure way of determining if it is really a word from God or not.

The Bible is the full canon of God's revelation to man. There is no revelation given to man at this time outside of Scripture. What God is imparting NOW is "illumination."

I think people get "revevlation" and "illumination" confused and mistake one for the other. A word from God today is "illumination" not "revelation."

"Revelation" knowledge that is supernaturally transferred and could not have been known prior. "Illumination" is greater understanding of God's "Revelation" i.e., His Word.

I do believe there may be a time when we will receive greater revelation, perhaps during the New Heavens and New Earth when our capacity for handling that knowledge is increased.

[pokemaughan]

God still speaks. He has His messengers today as He always has. Having said that, I do not believe God transfers wisdom or knowledge that does not already exist in the Scriptures. This is because when we receive a word from God, we have to be able to test it against the Bible in order to verify it is from the Lord. If the Lord is transferring information that cannot be confirmed by Scripture, we have no sure way of determining if it is really a word from God or not.

The Bible is the full canon of God's revelation to man. There is no revelation given to man at this time outside of Scripture. What God is imparting NOW is "illumination."

I think people get "revevlation" and "illumination" confused and mistake one for the other. A word from God today is "illumination" not "revelation."

"Revelation" knowledge that is supernaturally transferred and could not have been known prior. "Illumination" is greater understanding of God's "Revelation" i.e., His Word.

I do believe there may be a time when we will receive greater revelation, perhaps during the New Heavens and New Earth when our capacity for handling that knowledge is increased.

Oooo, good point shiloh. Very good point.

Good stuff to think about... I know what you're talking about. One the Holy Spirit's jobs is to illuminate the Scriptures to us, in which we get a deeper understanding.

Thank you for your input.

[nebula]

Well, this might not be the best example, but it's the only one I can think of off the top of my head.

If you are visited by an angel and he tells you his name is Samuel, are you going to deny he could be of God because only two angels in the Bible have revealed names?

(I'm not saying you don't test the spirits, but is that the basis you would go by?)

And would you discount any message he had to give just because you believe no further revelation can be given?

[pokemaughan]

Well, this might not be the best example, but it's the only one I can think of off the top of my head.

If you are visited by an angel and he tells you his name is Samuel, are you going to deny he could be of God because only two angels in the Bible have revealed names?

(I'm not saying you don't test the spirits, but is that the basis you would go by?)

And would you discount any message he had to give just because you believe no further revelation can be given?

Well... if I can even barely imagine how amazing it would be to physically have an angel visit me... hmm...

I think my first response would be to suck up every word he/she/it said and follow.

Afterwards, I'd doublecheck my Bible to test if this angel was of God, Satan, or my imagination.

That's an interesting situation that obviously can't fully answer to because I have had no outrageous supernatural experiences other than my conversion experience, but even that wasn't too crazy... no flashing lights or booming voices.

But I'd first have to ask, is it Biblical that I would be physically visited by an angel? If so, than I'd have grounds to believe. If not, then I'd have grounds for a trip to the loony-bin...

I understand your example though.

[OneLight]

Well, this might not be the best example, but it's the only one I can think of off the top of my head.

If you are visited by an angel and he tells you his name is Samuel, are you going to deny he could be of God because only two angels in the Bible have revealed names?

(I'm not saying you don't test the spirits, but is that the basis you would go by?)

And would you discount any message he had to give just because you believe no further revelation can be given?

That would have to depend on the message the angel brought to me. If it lined up with scripture, then I would accept he is of God. If not, then scripture still holds true, for even Satan can disguise himself as an angle of light.