Are you a believer in a sola scriptura or do you just claim to be.
Alot of Protestants these days do not believe in sola scriptura. Sure, they are huge Bible-thumpers and they can quote a great deal of isolated memory verses from Sunday School. They might have even been told the meaning of a couple generic Greek words second hand. They love their Bible, but they do not believe in sola scriptura. They actually follow a different Latin phrase that is less well known: prima scriptura.
Prima scriptura translates "scripture is primary". It means that the Bible is first, but not the only source of divine revelation.
Sola scriptura translates "by scripture alone". It means that the Bible is the first and only source of divine revelation.
This is a key difference and it results in many misunderstandings in theological discussions.
Most prima scriptura Christians will claim to be Biblical and they will initially sound like they believe in sola scriptura... but they do not. If one claims to believe in sola scriptura, they have to adhere to the 'alone' part. If they want to downgrade it by making it a 'primary' source instead of the 'only' source, they have stepped out of the very meaning of sola and wandered off into the deadly minefield of prima-land.
If you are using something else to determine what the Bible is saying, your prima warning flags should go up. Church tradition, the church fathers, Bible commentaries, individual preachers, and your own mushy grey matter may be all well and good, but they are to be harshly evaluated and accursed if they deviate from the authority of Holy Scripture. Even the angels in heaven are held to the rule of Holy Scripture [Gal 1:6-12].
Many good Christians these days are being mislead by fallible commentaries and foolish explanations. They do not turn to God for revelation; they turn to men. They read something in Holy Scripture and it is so clear that it causes them to see the truth. They read something like 1 Peter 3:18-22 and wonder aloud, "wow, 'baptism now saves you'? That can't be right." They then consult some human work to reblind themselves.
To help them through this uncomfortable crisis, do they turn to more Scripture? Noooo... They consult some fallible piece of paper (their dogma) written by a fallible human author (their pope) which tells them something about a "reverse metaphorical comparison" or a "double typological metaphor" or some other silly dribble. This commentary tells them, "just as baptism is a typological symbol of the flood that saved Noah, so baptism is a typological symbol of our salvation in Jesus Christ." Suddenly, they understand that they must have read it wrong. Baptism is just an ordinance after all.
They read the whole host of Scripture that speaks clearly that the bread is Christ's body and the wine is Christ's blood. They wonder, "how can this be? That can't be right." They then consult some human work to reblind themselves.
To help them through this uncomfortable crisis, do they turn to more Scripture? Noooo... They consult their paper pope again for the true source of divine revelation. That human invention tells them that "Jesus is speaking metaphorically". Suddenly, they understand that they must have read it wrong. The Lord's Supper is just an ordinance after all.
Did the Bible tell them what to believe or did the commentary tell them how to think? Who is the ultimate source of divine revelation? Is God revealed to you by Scripture or by human opinion? Are you using exegesis to hear what God is saying or are you letting some human commentary tell you what to think? If you are not using proper exegesis of Holy Scripture as your only source for doctrine, how can you claim sola scriptura? If you are letting people mold the Bible to get you to support their views, how are you any different than the blind Jehovah Witnesses who slavishly obey the fickle opinions of the Watchtower?
Always remember what happens when you listen to a false commentary that tries to put divine revelation in its proper context for you. Be careful that some snake is not trying to spin what you correctly heard to suit his purposes.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Sola Scriptura or Prima Scriptura?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I'll bet if you were to take a look at the "way you live and practice your faith" you would find yourself living it in more of prima than sola way. This, however, does not change the questions at hand. Now, let me pose this thought at this point; if we are to hold to sola-scriptura, upon which historically "acceptable" "scripture" are we to base our belief, considering that as best we can tell, there have been a miriad of opinions as to what writtings were actually considered to be scripture (whose translation(s), interpretation(s), etc?). So, who's opinion do we take? Which "Scriptura" do we consider to be "The Authoritative, No Questions Asked, God Given, Accurate, Total & Complete" Version?
I'll bet if you were to take a look at the "way you live and practice your faith" you would find yourself living it in more of prima than sola way.
Of course the moment you start talking about the way that I live my faith, you introduce my own prideful sinfulness. You add my error and human weakness to God's perfect Word. In those places where I am prima, Lord forgive me and make me sola.
That said, I do not practice prima scriptura. I work to understand Scripture in context and allow it to interpret itself. In those places where external evidence disagrees with the clear testimony of Holy Writ, I cast it aside. That is the essence of Sola Scriptura. I do not add my human reason, mystcism, or external philosophy to what I read... which would be prima scriptura.
This, however, does not change the questions at hand. Now, let me pose this thought at this point; if we are to hold to sola-scriptura, upon which historically "acceptable" "scripture" are we to base our belief, considering that as best we can tell, there have been a miriad of opinions as to what writtings were actually considered to be scripture (whose translation(s), interpretation(s), etc?). So, who's opinion do we take?
You are right to say that there are a myraid of "opinions" about what Scripture says and means. That does not make them valid by any means.
There are people who believe that the earth is flat... but one would not cast the roundness of the earth into doubt because of a few wrong people. There are people who believe that the holocaust never happened... but the mountain of evidence proves them wrong. Their opinion is invalid.
The same is true of theological "opinion". The overwhelming evidence of Scripture disproves the overwhelming majority of these heterodox beliefs.
Just like gravity and the moon landing, there is a single testimony found in Scripture that is clearly the truth. It is clear, plain, and consistant. The only way that one can draw a conclusion other than the orthodox faith is to ignore or twist what is clearly written.
Not only is it easy to access to those who permit Scripture to speak for itself, it is also consistantly testified to throughout history by a host of faithful commentators. It is the teaching that is affirmed by the Apostolic Creeds and Councils.
Of course study of Scripture is always a complex and detailed process, but knowing the truth from all of the garbage is much easier than one might imagine.
The majority of these "opinions" that you site have to explain away certain passages that disagree with their error. Many of these "opinions" are based on second- or third- language translations of the original language. When you look to what Scripture actually says and study it the way that one ought, the message becomes quite clear.
In fact, it is so clear that it will change poeple's "opinions". When they read Scripture and study at the feet of the Holy Spirit, they become adept at being able to spot the opinions from the truth. There is one truth, but many opinions.
I would encourage you to begin this journey of scholastic and spiritual discovery and find out for yourself. I will be happy to point you in the right direction.
Which "Scriptura" do we consider to be "The Authoritative, No Questions Asked, God Given, Accurate, Total & Complete" Version?
The universally accepted Scriptures that have been used by the church have remained unchanged for the life of the church. That testimony has been consistant. Those places where error was introduced, it was quickly anathamized and removed. You can trust the authority of the current Scriptures. Historical evidence proves that the church never accepted many of the books such as the Gospel of Judas any more than they accepted passages of pagan teachings. You never find books from what we now call the Bible bound with such spurious texts. They were and remain outside of the teachings of Christianity as false and filled with false doctrine. This is universally accepted.
New revelations of texts such as the Book of Mormon are just that... new and novel inventions that are abberrant additions in the modern age. They are contradictory and the origins are easily cast into doubt by the historical record.
If you wanted to expand the discussion into the apocryphal books and the various minor differences between various denomenation's Bible's, I would be happy to do so on a new post.
Post a Comment