Solae Scriptura vs Prima Scriptura

[Fidei Defensor]

Solae Scriptura means Scripture Alone. Scripture alone is the measure and means to test, check, and determine right theology and doctrine. Solae Scriptura holds that Scripture is God breathed and Spirit written (2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:20-21) and thus is all that is necessary for theology, doxology, christology, and Christian living. 

Prima Scriptura means First and above all traditions is Scripture, However it does hold that other traditions can be added to Scriptura and can be equal to it as in Ecumenical Councils. 

This thread is a means to discuss and debate the two views. 

Edited September 5, 2018 by Fidei Defensor

[Fidei Defensor]

Many Reformed Churches profess to be Solae Scriptura and even quote the term in their confession or Catechism, but often they have added traditions. For instance in many Lutheran churches there is a third sacrament, confession. Like the Roman Catholic Church they demand you go to the priest to confess and receive absolution. 

[Fidei Defensor]

The paragon of Prima Scriptura is the Roman Catholic Church which has Scripture, the Apocyphal, Ecumenical Councils from Nicea to Vatican II, Canon Law (80 volumes) and the Catholic Catechism as all being equal tradition;. The Ecumenical councils, Canon law with the Catechism is said by RCC to define and clarify Scripture. 

Edited September 6, 2018 by Fidei Defensor

[Fidei Defensor]

The Eastern Orthodox Church is Prima Scriptura, they hold their own canons, a longer apocayphal with Maccabees 3 and 4 added and an epistle of Daniel, as well as being very deep in the Desert Fathers (St. Antony of Egypt, Athansiasus of Alexandria, John Crysostom and etc) and Apostolic Writers (the supposed successors of the apostles). Orthodox claim Scripture, the Old and New Testament is the First and chief tradition above others, but their mystaggogia and emphasis on the asceticism and its ‘heroes’ proves otherwise. 

 

 

[Fidei Defensor]

Charismatic Churches revere Scripture, but often let prophetic voices and supernatural experiences prevail over Scripture and refuse to “test the spirits to see if they come from God.” (1 John 4:1). There are more balanced Charisma churches that teach Scripture like a Bible Church and move in Gifts of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:4-12, 1 Corinthians 14). 

[Fidei Defensor]

Solae Scriptura is the battle cry for us Christians and Protestants, and yet sadly it is often not in Full effect. Many add the teachings and books of the latest evangelical, non-denominational, and mainstream leader’s book and teaching to Scripture. Sadly, many are Prima Scriptura In Evangelicalism and Non-Denom because they trust in the books by Derek Prince, Joel Osteen, Patricia Shirer, Joseph Prince, Joyce Meyer, John Bunyan, Martin Luther, Puritans, Thomas A Kempis, John Weasley, John Calvin,  C.S. Lewis, Dietrich Bonehoffer, and etc. 

Edited September 5, 2018 by Fidei Defensor

[Fidei Defensor]

Solae Scriptura offends our pride. We want to accumulate knowledge and know what Augustine of Hippo, C.S. Lewis, and John Bunyan said. While these authors have said some good teaching, they have often added error. C.S. Lewis for instance put in The Chronicles of Narnia: The Last Battle that Calormen (Arab, Muslim), named Emeth,  who worshipped the god Tash was really seeking Aslan and so he gets to go to True Narnia (heaven). This is in direct contravention of the Gospel that Jesus is Is the only way (John 14:6) and salavation is only in Him (John 3:16-18). 

Diedrich Bonehoffer wrote a book “The Cost of Disicpleship” which he later recanted but is still a best seller and classic in Christian bookstores. 

We must be careful. Scripture (Holy Bible) is God Breathed and unchangable (2 Timothy 3:26, 2 Peter 1:20-21). All other writings must be scrutinized by Scripture. Just because C.S. Lewis, Martin Luther, Billy Graham and other writings wrote some insight does not mean all their writings are good; nay on contrary they can lull people into sense of security and then introduce a destructive heresy, “But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves.” (2 Peter 2:1). 

Edited September 5, 2018 by Fidei Defensor

[Global Mission]

Good topic.

You wrote, "...while these authors have said some good teaching, they often

added error."

It seems that we focus ( maybe too much? )  - on finding better teaching / authors.

Then we find out the book has errors... sometimes surprised / disappointed

that these authors have flaws.

 

 

 

[GandalfTheWise]

2 hours ago, Fidei Defensor said:

Solae Scriptura means Scripture Alone. Scripture alone is the measure and means to test, check, and determine right theology and doctrine. Solae Scriptura holds that Scripture is God breathed and Spirit written (2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:20-21) and thus is all that is necessary for theology, doxology, christology, and Christian living. 

 

2 hours ago, Fidei Defensor said:

Solae Scriptura is the battle cry for us Christians and Protestants, and yet sadly it is often not in Full effect. Many add the teachings and books of the latest evangelical, non-denominational, and mainstream leader’s book and teaching to Scripture. Sadly, many are Prima Scriptura In Evangelicalism and Non-Denom because they trust in the books by Derek Prince, Joel Osteen, Patricia Shirer, Joseph Prince, Joyce Meyer, John Bunyan, Martin Luther, Puritans, Thomas A Kempis, John Weasley, John Calvin,  C.S. Lewis, Dietrich Bonehoffer, and etc. 

I agree with much of what was written including that as a practical matter pretty much all Christians become Prima Scriptura as soon as they identify authors or teachers or churches or denominations that they view as authorities to be trusted.  I've held a similar opinion for a very long time.  It's why I read things from so many different Christian sources.  No one has it all right; and very few are so dead wrong that they have nothing insightful to say.  There are those beautiful helpful insights that God just seems to have randomly dropped around in various places.  I long ago gave up looking for what individuals or groups had it right; none do completely.  Now, I look to sort out the gems from rocks in a variety of places.

Part of me wonders if Solae Scriptura by itself is potentially an intellectual trap that can turn Christianity into primarily being about holding the correct opinions on particular topics (and calling that "correct belief") and following the right rules to behave the right way.  Where is God in this?  Where is the role of being a new creation in Christ?  In hindsight from my 40+ years as a Christian,  I now think that those mature experienced believers who have walked closely with God for years and who can give wise practical spiritual insights for daily living and long term spiritual growth have produced much more fruit in the body of Christ than those who can rattle off and defend various theological details of Christianity.  I just realized over time that those teachers, authors, and believers that had the most influence on me were those who *showed* me how to walk with God and shared their lives, not those who taught me the right facts to know and opinions to hold.  Often, those things that most influenced me were not so much scripture quotations or doctrinal teachings, but practical advice and examples on how to pray, on how to treat people, on how to grow spiritually, and how to live as a Christian.  It was those who best knew God who could share the most of about getting to know Him more.    Having all the correct doctrinal opinions *about* God is not the same as actually knowing God Himself.  Learning and following as many rules from scripture as best as we possibly can is not the same as maturing spiritually and having fruit just naturally spring and flow from inside of us.

The big question I have is ultimately what would a true implementation of Solae Scriptura mean or if it is even possible.   I'll have to think about that more, but I think it needs to be tied closely into our spiritual growth and drawing closer to God as well as having its limitations clearly noted.  It also seems to me that at some point we ultimately need to appeal to either "The Holy Spirit told me" or "Most Christians believe" or "My church believes"  or "Christian scholars say"  or "This is what I know the Bible clearly says and you are a heretic if you disagree"  or some other type of appeal to authority outside the Bible to resolve differences about what particular passages of scripture mean.  My sense is that Christians usually either take the approach of circle the wagons and kick out anyone who disagrees or they agree to disagree depending on the seriousness of the matter at hand.  (and then they argue over which of those two approaches is scriptural.)   I've often pondered what the authority of scripture means from a practical standpoint but never come to a completely satisfactory answer since there always seems to be some type of appeal to an authority outside of scripture.  

[Fidei Defensor]

50 minutes ago, GandalfTheWise said:

 

I agree with much of what was written including that as a practical matter pretty much all Christians become Prima Scriptura as soon as they identify authors or teachers or churches or denominations that they view as authorities to be trusted.  I've held a similar opinion for a very long time.  It's why I read things from so many different Christian sources.  No one has it all right; and very few are so dead wrong that they have nothing insightful to say.  There are those beautiful helpful insights that God just seems to have randomly dropped around in various places.  I long ago gave up looking for what individuals or groups had it right; none do completely.  Now, I look to sort out the gems from rocks in a variety of places.

Part of me wonders if Solae Scriptura by itself is potentially an intellectual trap that can turn Christianity into primarily being about holding the correct opinions on particular topics (and calling that "correct belief") and following the right rules to behave the right way.  Where is God in this?  Where is the role of being a new creation in Christ?  In hindsight from my 40+ years as a Christian,  I now think that those mature experienced believers who have walked closely with God for years and who can give wise practical spiritual insights for daily living and long term spiritual growth have produced much more fruit in the body of Christ than those who can rattle off and defend various theological details of Christianity.  I just realized over time that those teachers, authors, and believers that had the most influence on me were those who *showed* me how to walk with God and shared their lives, not those who taught me the right facts to know and opinions to hold.  Often, those things that most influenced me were not so much scripture quotations or doctrinal teachings, but practical advice and examples on how to pray, on how to treat people, on how to grow spiritually, and how to live as a Christian.  It was those who best knew God who could share the most of about getting to know Him more.    Having all the correct doctrinal opinions *about* God is not the same as actually knowing God Himself.  Learning and following as many rules from scripture as best as we possibly can is not the same as maturing spiritually and having fruit just naturally spring and flow from inside of us.

The big question I have is ultimately what would a true implementation of Solae Scriptura mean or if it is even possible.   I'll have to think about that more, but I think it needs to be tied closely into our spiritual growth and drawing closer to God as well as having its limitations clearly noted.  It also seems to me that at some point we ultimately need to appeal to either "The Holy Spirit told me" or "Most Christians believe" or "My church believes"  or "Christian scholars say"  or "This is what I know the Bible clearly says and you are a heretic if you disagree"  or some other type of appeal to authority outside the Bible to resolve differences about what particular passages of scripture mean.  My sense is that Christians usually either take the approach of circle the wagons and kick out anyone who disagrees or they agree to disagree depending on the seriousness of the matter at hand.  (and then they argue over which of those two approaches is scriptural.)   I've often pondered what the authority of scripture means from a practical standpoint but never come to a completely satisfactory answer since there always seems to be some type of appeal to an authority outside of scripture.  

I myself read church histories, fiction, and etc. Solae Scriptura isn’t to deny reading other books, that is madness; it means don’t let other theological books and authors gain precedent over Scripture; always let Scripture prevail against the giants of Church History. 

The struggle is to let Scripture remain your only book for right theology, doctrine, christology, and etc while enjoying the insights of other books and writers. We must be careful though because there  are destructive heresies (2 Peter 2:1) that can creep into the non-Scripture author’s writing. 

Long as we do not hold up a work by an author outside the Bible to Scripture, Solae Scripture can prevail.