#prima scriptura

My instinct is to lean towards Prima Scriptura - that the scriptures are the most important. I explored sola scriptura on my Wordpress blog where I largely failed to come to any firm conclusions at all.

My understanding is that Sola Scriptura was something that the Reformation brought us. Which explains why it is common in charismatic evangelical circles with the infallibility of scripture doctrines.

Even if the scripture is infallible (I simply don’t know for certain) then they would still be subject to fallible readership and therefore fallible interpretations. So regardless of the fallibility and authority of scripture above all things, our own inability to read them accurately and without error makes the whole point academic.

My main concern with Sola Scriptura is that it comes with the idea that no new information can be had. Yet the scriptures were compiled over time. To say “that’s it, God’s finished telling us stuff” is more arrogant than I am willing to be.

Most Protestants adhere to Sola Scriptura or “by Scriptures alone”, which refers to the Holy Scripture as the only source and final authority of doctrine.

We believe that the Bible is sufficient to know salvation and to live a Christian life. This is contrasted with Sacred Tradition, the belief that traditions handed down by the early church have the same authority as the Scriptures, a belief which many Roman Catholics uphold.

However, there are subjects that are not sufficiently addressed or specifically spelled out in the Bible. How about falling under the anointing when laying hands, holy laughter or silver dust? There is no verse that explicitly mention these manifestations of the Holy Spirit. However, we believe in these because of experience.

What about gambling and drugs? The Bible does not explicitly mention these vices, nor does it condemn them as sin. But we know that “all things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify.” (1 Cor 10:23).

From this verse, we deduce that a habit of gambling and taking drugs are detrimental for Christian living and should be avoided. We believe this because of reason.

And yet there some traditions that we hold on to that are not specifically mentioned in the Bible, such as the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, belief in the Trinity and many more. What about the DNA of City Harvest Church? Is not our DNA of discipleship, cellgroup system, etc. a modern form of tradition as well?

As such, I am inclined towards Prima Scriptura — Scripture being first or above all other sources of divine revelation, but also including common sense, charismatic gifts, tradition, a word in season and personal experiences.

The term Prima Scriptura was coined by John Wesley, the great theologian and founder of the Methodist Church. John Wesley also went on the establish the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, which states four sources of doctrine: Scripture, tradition, experience and reason.

Kevin Allen speaks with the William F. Orr Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, Dr Edith M. Humphrey, on the relationship between the oral and written traditions of the Bible and how the various Christian faith traditions have made a relatively modern dichotomy between Scripture and Holy Tradition.

However, the Bible -- its divine origin not withstanding -- is still a book.  It does not claim to be, all-sufficient.  The Scriptures [both Testaments] were produced within the context of God's dealing with Israel [Old and New Israel].  This context, this living relationship of God with His People, is nothing less than tradition.  Apart from this tradition, holy tradition, the Bible loses its necessary point of reference.  Treated as a 'bare text,' it becomes enslaved to whatever tradition the reader happens to bear upon it.

The Protestant insistence on sola Scriptura is not so much erroneous as it is impossible. The divinely inspired writers of the Scriptures do not claim sole-sufficiency for their writings precisely because they wrote within a specific context and expected their writings to be read within that context -- the living relationship of God with man in the Church."