02-07-2023, 12:17 PM
Here's an interesting question for us to talk about - how can we describe the role of scripture in determining our faith lives?
Some may say 'solo scriptura' or 'only scripture.' John Wesley is said to say he was a 'man of one book'. But the tendency of 'only scripture' proponents is to ignore that scripture itself is a product in part of tradition. It is the tradition of the church that set the canon of scripture. We need reason to understand scripture. Our experience influences how we read it. Our interaction with scripture isn't something that happens in isolation.
Some may say 'prima scriptura' or 'scripture first'. This is the way a lot of Wesleyan scholars refer to scripture and is considered a tenet of the 'Wesleyan Quadrilateral' of Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience. Scripture comes first, with the others providing direction and influence in the interpretation of scripture.
But I have a view I'm considering that proposes a slight difference - 'suprema scriptura' (that might not be correct in Latin, but stick with me) This means scripture is supreme. What I mean is there is a difference in primacy and supremacy. Primacy (scripture first), implies an ordinal arrangement of items without ranking of merit. It's like 1,2,3,4,... One comes first, but it isn't necessarily the best or most important. To say that scripture is primary is to say that scripture is the first step, but doesn't imply that it is the most important step. Supremacy implies a cardinal arrangement of items by rank or merit. It's like gold, silver, bronze medals - a ranking of their importance. To say that scripture is supreme is to say that it takes precedence over others. Tradition, reason, and experience are not just other steps to understanding faith, but they are inferior. Where scripture and the others disagree, scripture is superior and is to be followed.
So, I believe that scripture is not just 'prima' (first) but also 'suprema' (supreme).
Thoughts?
Some may say 'solo scriptura' or 'only scripture.' John Wesley is said to say he was a 'man of one book'. But the tendency of 'only scripture' proponents is to ignore that scripture itself is a product in part of tradition. It is the tradition of the church that set the canon of scripture. We need reason to understand scripture. Our experience influences how we read it. Our interaction with scripture isn't something that happens in isolation.
Some may say 'prima scriptura' or 'scripture first'. This is the way a lot of Wesleyan scholars refer to scripture and is considered a tenet of the 'Wesleyan Quadrilateral' of Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience. Scripture comes first, with the others providing direction and influence in the interpretation of scripture.
But I have a view I'm considering that proposes a slight difference - 'suprema scriptura' (that might not be correct in Latin, but stick with me) This means scripture is supreme. What I mean is there is a difference in primacy and supremacy. Primacy (scripture first), implies an ordinal arrangement of items without ranking of merit. It's like 1,2,3,4,... One comes first, but it isn't necessarily the best or most important. To say that scripture is primary is to say that scripture is the first step, but doesn't imply that it is the most important step. Supremacy implies a cardinal arrangement of items by rank or merit. It's like gold, silver, bronze medals - a ranking of their importance. To say that scripture is supreme is to say that it takes precedence over others. Tradition, reason, and experience are not just other steps to understanding faith, but they are inferior. Where scripture and the others disagree, scripture is superior and is to be followed.
So, I believe that scripture is not just 'prima' (first) but also 'suprema' (supreme).
Thoughts?