Why Prima Scriptura is True

 

This is a small post. Basically, I just want to briefly argue why Prima Scriptura, that is, that Scripture is the primary authority, is the teaching of Scripture rather than that of Sola Scriptura. 

Today, many Evangelicals claim that Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Anglican Christians are wrong to hold traditions not found explicitly in Scripture. Some of them go so far as to claim that Sola Scriptura is an essential of the Christian faith. 

And yet nowhere in Scripture does the scriptures itself claim to be the only authority. In fact, the Apostles and elders in Acts 15 did not simply appeal to Scripture only in rejecting the Judaizers. Rather, they understood themselves as the head of the Christian Church which recognized any claims of necessary circumcision to be contrary to Scripture. 

Scripture is inspired (2 Timothy 3: 16). Yet nowhere does Scripture ever claim that it alone is authoritative. In Acts 15, the Council of Jerusalem was authoritative over the church, for instance. And the authority of the church over local matters was not just for the apostles, otherwise, Christ's promise to the apostles in Matthew 16 that the gates of hell will not prevail against His church, means nothing.  

In 2 Thessalonians 2: 15, Paul affirms both Scripture and church tradition, as known by the apostles, as authoritative. Paul, the blessed apostle did not hold to Sola Scriptura:

''So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.''

-2 Thessalonians 2: 15

Indeed, Paul understood that not all valid and authoritative church traditions are those written (Scripture). Some were passed down by oral tradition. The ancient fathers, some of whom knew the apostles, have sometimes recorded what those traditions were---traditions that they would know better than seminaries two thousand years later. 

The context of 2 Thessalonians 2: 15 cannot be referring only to Scripture. For even those who couldn't read, would have heard the New Testament epistles read to the churches by the presbyters---thud they heard his writings (tradition) aloud. The passage is referring to more than scripture, however, but to other church traditions not mentioned in Scripture. 

One of the greatest proofs against the modern Evangelical view of Sola Scriptura is that Pentecost began roughly 30 years after Christ's birth. And yet, the New Testament was written decades later. Many of the gospels were not written until at least the 60s or 70s A. D. Thus, there was a church before there was a New Testament just as the Jews were the people of God before the composition of Genesis and Exodus. Scripture itself is a result of the people of God, not the reverse. 

Indeed, the New Testament Canon did not fall out of Heaven. It took centuries before the early Christians even agreed that books should be considered the inspired Word of God. The Bible did not fall out of Heaven. God did not write the Bible with His hand in the sense that He did the Ten Commandments. On the contrary, Scripture was inspired by God, but written by men in various geographical regions, over various centuries. 

No Evangelical can prove to you what books are canonical by the Bible alone. The Gospels and the Pauline Epistles, for example, never quote Revelation or mention it as a canonical book. If Evangelicals then point to their Bibles including it, they must realize that their Bibles are not the original manuscripts and have still drawn the Biblical canon according to the views of the Early Christians. 

We should accept the same church that gave us the canon of Scripture. It makes no sense to trust that the Ealry Christians recognized what books were canonical and which ones weren't, but they ignored all that they said. 

I'm not saying that every evangelical ignores everything that the father said. Unfortunately, many of them do. They've been trained by their evangelical pastors to believe only the Bible as authoritative (though the interpretations of Scripture proposed by the Baptist preacher is often taken as authoritative as well). 

This is not about a low view vs. a high view of God. Actually, those who say that only Scriptures are authoritative have a low view of God as they don't recognize the Holy Spirit protecting the church from error long after the apostles are dead (Matthew 16) and that the church is the Bride of Christ who is holy and blameless (Ephesians 5, Revelation 19). 

2 Peter 1: 20 affirms that no one should hold their own interpretation of scripture. Indeed, we learn the true interpretation of scripture by studying the writings of the people who gave us the New Testament canon, such as Athanasius of Alexandria. And where evangelicals conflict with the fathers, we would be wise to take the opinion of the fathers. 

It is true that Jesus refuted the traditions of men in scripture, but this was in the context of Judaism (Mark 7: 7-13), and different than the traditions of the church, the latter of which Paul tells us to hold. This is the danger of Evangelicals reading the Bible with no knowledge of Judaism and how Jesus's words chiefly reflect the corruption of Judaism and were before the church's existence. The reformers allegorically read the Pharisees as the Catholic Church, but that was not the purpose of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Rather, the gospel writers were invested in the history of Jesus's life and ministry, with no knowledge of disputes in the church that would have happened over a thousand years later. The gospel writers also recognized that Jesus was bringing the hope of His Kingship into the world of first-century Judaism, and the Pharisees and Sadducees were against the promises of Christ being the Messiah. Indeed, the Jewish priests were defying our Lord and Old Testament prophecy concerning Christ out of their pride. This situation cannot be compared to that of the Protestants vs. Catholics in the sixteenth century. In this sense, Jesus was the one holding to tradition as he was fulfilled the traditions of Scripture while the Pharisees replaced the Scriptures with contrary traditions of man. 

No doubt, the context of 2 Thessalonians 2: 15 is very different. Paul tells the believers to even hold traditions that they had received from the Apostles---which were not written in Scripture. His letter does not criticize all traditions. Why? Because Paul recognizes the importance of church tradition. Jesus said to Himself that those who reject the Apostles reject Him (Luke 10: 16). And since those church traditions were carried on by Paul and others in the New Testament (which Scripture never claims that they ended and were just for the Apostles)

Unlike the Pharisees and Sadducees, none of the seven Ecumenical Councils contradict Scripture. They detail theological issues that are barely mentioned in Scripture or not mentioned in Scripture at all. But church traditions that aren't directly mentioned in Scripture are different than traditions that contradict and defy Biblical teaching. For example, the Councils don't contradict Scripture by further detailing Christian worship, such as II Nicaea did. 

The church fathers didn't all agree with one another. They often differed on eschatology, however. But there was universal acceptance across Christendom in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist ---meaning that this particular doctrine, is an article of the Catholic faith. Furthermore, church councils override the opinions of individual fathers just as the Council of Jerusalem had greater authority than local elders in Acts 15.

Some church fathers' teaching have also gained more acceptance than others. Ambrose of Milan and Athanasius of Alexandria, unlike Origen of Alexandria, were never contradicted by any of the ancient councils. 

Where the fathers differ, it's not typically considered the Catholic faith. Where they agree, Orthodoxy is affirmed. Ambrose differed from the Greek fathers on some topics, though neither was condemned by any of the seven Ecumenical Councils. 

If we say that the church traditions were just for the Thessalonians church in 2 Thessalonians 2: `15 (a most strange interpretation), then we must also conclude that pastors are only for the first-century church (1 Timothy 3) and elders (Titus 1). None of this is taught by Scripture, though. The entire New Testament epistles affirm all the practices that Christians today should live by. 

Even Luther understood Sola Scriptura differently than many Baptists and Pentecostal Evangelicals. He accepted church practices not explicitly found in Scripture, such as infant baptism. He also recognized that the Catholic Church gave the Protestants the Bible. Gradually, however, Evangelicals, especially since the Enlightenment, have believed that Scripture is the only authority. 

It is sometimes claimed that Evangelicals know the Bible better than do Catholics and Orthodox. Yet this is often deceiving. Many of them have learned to select Bible verses, with no knowledge of the historical and grammatical context. As the old saying goes, ''You can know just enough about a subject to think that you know much more about it than you do.'' 

For the record, I'm not endorsing every dogmatic teaching of either Roman Catholicism or Greek Orthodoxy. Tragically, since 1054, each side of the church has ratified its own dogmas which were never universally accepted by the church as a whole. Thus, the first seven Ecumenical Councils carry a heavier weight as to what is theologically true than do the later councils. Catholic, in its fullness, is the unity of both Eastern and Western Churches in affirming the Orthodox faith. God has protected the Seven Ecumenical Councils from error as they are the fullness of Catholic authority and truth, but many of the later councils aren't protected from the Holy Spirit in the same regard. 

In the seventeenth century, Anglican theologian, Richard Hooker, came into theological disputes with the Puritans. The latter claimed that nothing explicit in Scripture is wrong (they condemned wedding rings, Christmas, Shakespeare plays, etc). Yet the theology of the Puritans was now very different than that of the deceased Martin Luther. Hooker understood that Scripture is sufficient, but not the only authority. Luther himself prayed the rosary and did not understand Sola Scriptura as the Puritans now understood it. Hooker never denied Sola Scriptura as Luther understood it, but termed Prima Scriptura against what he saw as the extremes of the Puritans. 

Lastly, there is Sola Ecclesia. This asserts that the church alone is infallible and it never makes errors in interpreting Scripture. Hooker didn't claim this. He didn't believe that Rome was infallible, for instance. But he also understood that many Christian practices (such as the use of wedding rings) are not found in Scripture, but not conflict with Scripture either. Indeed, he understood that scripture is the primary authority, but church tradition is still an authority as Paul the Apostle taught in 2 Thessalonians 2: 15. 

Those who replace the historic teachings of the church build their faith in men by denying the efficacy of the Holy Spirit to preserve the Catholic Church from all error. The Protestant Reformation set out to amend the Roman Catholic Church from abuse, but in turn, Protestantism has born 45,000 denominations and counting, with countless divisions now across Christendom. 

Finally, some Evangelicals claim traditions of the church such as beheld by Catholics and Orthodox are comparable to those of Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. But this is not true. The latter two are cults that deny the plain teachings of Scripture (such as those about the Trinity) and deny the teachings of the Fathers. Furthermore, Mormons came about 1800 years after Christ, whereas Catholicism precedes Protestantism. 

Nevertheless, Eastern Orthodoxy is more correct than present-day Roman Catholicism on the authority of tradition. Many Evangelicals wrongly believe that Catholicism is based on the fathers, but it is primarily based on whatever the current magisterium teaches. Orthodoxy, on the other hand, is primarily based on the fathers. More Evangelicals should familiarize themselves with Orthodoxy, as it is generally closer to the fathers on church government than is Roman Catholicism (the fathers never taught papal infallibility). 

As someone who endorses the Anglo-Catholic branch theory of the church, I don't believe either Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodox is alone true Christianity. The Catholic Church which is comprised of the Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and some Anglican Churches, are faithful to 2 Thessalonians 2: 15 that not all traditions are found in Scripture. Those who defy this, actually defy Scripture as well as virtually every theologian before the sixteenth century. 

For more information on Hooker's view, check out the article below:

https://bradlittlejohn.com/2011/03/12/2011312sola-scriptura-as-rhetorical-posturing-html/