Oh how I wish this could be explained and convinced to biblical fundamentalists. As if accepting words at face value is not an interpretation?
Before we even read a word of Scripture we have an opinion as to what we will find. An Atheist will automatically dismiss the notion of God so the first sentence is virtually a closer. The bible is not unbiased, or pragmatic, or “fair”. It assumes a belief in God.
If God had to rely solely on the bible for His revelation He would be dismissing the vast majority of His created race. So on that basis if none other Sola Scriptura falls. Prima Scriptura assumes knowledge and acceptance that is also unreasonable. You cannot rely on what you neither know or believe.
Do you mind to explain what you mean by “assumes knowledge and acceptance that is also unreasonable.”? I’m not quite getting what you are saying and I want to see what you mean before I jump to conclusions.
Prima Scriptura means Scripture first, anything else second, right? Well that assumes that you both know (understand) and accept what Scripture is saying and / or that Scripture has prime knowledge of that subject. IOW it involves complete understanding of Scripture (which is a rare gift) let alone any knowledge at all.
You really think that God limits Himself to this? How many people do you know who really understands Scripture well enough to determine what it does or does not have authority over? Or, to put it another way, knows when Scripture is not the place to look? (or cannot help!)
As I see. While I think the Bible is unique to its revelation to who Jesus is and his ministry, I believe we can find knowledge of who God is within other religions as in many of the experiences the ancient people had in the Bible are no different from the experiences from others outside of the Bible. For me, what makes the Bible unique is that it reveals the mission of God through the person of Jesus Christ, though despite that it doesn’t negate the fact that God might have spoken to other people outside of the Christian long before or after it due to His desire to be with His people.
1 Like
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
25
The sola prima thing about (NT) scriptura is that it is the only tenuous warrant we have for believing in God. It arose within 20 years of the death of its mythical subject, starting with letters of Paul to established churches. Something happened; either a deterministic flowering of Hellenized Persian Judaism actually in the person of an itinerant faith healer alone or that further predicated on Him being the divine incarnate, made manifest through a pre-modern Jewish carpenter.
For me when it comes to sola scripta, which I believe in essentially as far as doctrine is considered, I keep it to just the book that we all agree on. I include a wider range of books in my opinion such as Jasher and Enoch, but since others don’t I essentially limit it to the Protestant Bible since catholics, Lutherans and almost everyone accepts those books. That does not* mean I must have a literal interpretation of it. But it does mean if it says something must be done like this, or that this is a sin, I accept it. When it comes to someone saying doctrine is this or that if they don’t have scriptural support I don’t place anymore weight in it. I also don’t base doctrine off of just one verse or one book. But many.