Christians have always had a written guide

[Fredricks]

An argument often used is that Sola Scripture cannot be true because the early church only had oral tradition until it was written down, then canonized at a later date as the New Testament. God would not have left his church without something to follow.

This premise is untrue and we will show it as such. After this, I do not see how any Catholic can claim that God left his people without a written guide.The early Church always had scripture. We call it the Old Testament.

The writers of the New Testament, according to one source, directly quote the Old Testament over 600 times and refer to it as many as 4,000 times.

Jesus never removes the authority of the Old Testament.
The Catholic Church in the Catechism also affirms the authority of the Old Testament even for the church prior to the New Testament being written.

The Old Testament

121 The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.

122 Indeed, "the economy of the Old Testament was deliberately so oriented that it should prepare for and declare in prophecy the coming of Christ, redeemer of all men."93 "Even though they contain matters imperfect and provisional,"94 the books of the Old Testament bear witness to the whole divine pedagogy of God’s saving love: these writings "are a storehouse of sublime teaching on God and of sound wisdom on human life, as well as a wonderful treasury of prayers; in them, too, the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way."95

123 Christians venerate the Old Testament as true Word of God. The Church has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the New has rendered it void (Marcionism).

The Catholic Church clearly teaches that the Old Testament HAS always been inspired. That include 33 CE to whenever the first gospel was written. The early church has ALWAYS had a written guide, even before the first word of the New Testament was written.

2Ti 3:16 *All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: * 2Ti 3:17 *That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. *

I know some wavering Protestants will wonder if that is what the early church truely did, follow the Old Testament.

Read 1st Clement and the Epistle of Barnabas. Both works of early Christians who do almost nothing in those letters EXCEPT appeal to the Old Testament to support their beliefs in Christ.

The Christian church has always had a written guide. You cannot use that argument. Its biblical and Catholic doctrine.

 

[montanaman]

Fredricks:

An argument often used is that Sola Scripture cannot be true because the early church only had oral tradition until it was written down, then canonized at a later date as the New Testament. God would not have left his church without something to follow.

This premise is untrue and we will show it as such. After this, I do not see how any Catholic can claim that God left his people without a written guide.The early Church always had scripture. We call it the Old Testament.

The writers of the New Testament, according to one source, directly quote the Old Testament over 600 times and refer to it as many as 4,000 times.

Jesus never removes the authority of the Old Testament.
The Catholic Church in the Catechism also affirms the authority of the Old Testament even for the church prior to the New Testament being written.

The Catholic Church clearly teaches that the Old Testament HAS always been inspired. That include 33 CE to whenever the first gospel was written. The early church has ALWAYS had a written guide, even before the first word of the New Testament was written.

I know some wavering Protestants will wonder if that is what the early church truely did, follow the Old Testament.

Read 1st Clement and the Epistle of Barnabas. Both works of early Christians who do almost nothing in those letters EXCEPT appeal to the Old Testament to support their beliefs in Christ.

The Christian church has always had a written guide. You cannot use that argument. Its biblical and Catholic doctrine.

Well, DUH.

But did they go by scripture ALONE? Not so much.

 

[SemperJase]

Fredricks:

The early Church always had scripture. We call it the Old Testament.

Catholics do not deny the OT.

But one can’t be a Christian only by using the OT. There is no confirmation of the new covenant in the OT. There is prophecy pointing to Jesus but look at Jews today. They don’t understand the Jesus is the Messiah. One can’t be saved by the OT alone. One cannot understand Jesus by the old testament alone. No where in the OT does it say OT alone.

This is the first time I’ve ever seen this defense of sola scriptura. I’m guessing that is because your claim lacks logic. OT does not equal NT as would be needed for your claim to be true.

 

[Nicene]

Which makes this all the more poignent:

2 Pet 1:20: First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,

Because:

2 Pet 3:16: speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

Not even the Jews did this until it was pointed out to them and they had to go search scripture to see if it was true:

Acts: 17:10: The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Beroe’a; and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. 11: Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessaloni’ca, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

Sola Scriptura didn’t get them very far they had to hear it from Paul and Silas first (Those darn teachers)

Not even a non denom can shoot that down and has to admit they had to be taught, because by sola scripture they missed it, they had to hear it first from those given authority to understand, particularly in the case of the OT.

For further evidence, the pharisees and scribes knew scripture inside out, they were required to, yet they missed it completely. Sola scriptura got them nowhere fast. (well except for afew who actually had the faith to believe Christ when he spoke Joseph, Nicodemus etc.)

Paul himself is the personification of the arguement against sola scriptura, being a former pharisee. He missed it completely and persecuted christians, until Christ came down, and had to intervene giving him the revelation personally.

Almost a good arguement though.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

Would this be a case where the non denom doesn’t accept the authority of an apostle when he tells them not to do such a thing, disgarding the catholic epistles (James, John, Peter and Jude) because they don’t recognize the authority the aposltes have over that of their self appointed bishops?

They would not have written such if they had not expected to be listened and adhered to.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Fred_1]

Fredricks:

122 Indeed, "the economy of the Old Testament was deliberately so oriented that it should prepare for and declare in prophecy the coming of Christ, redeemer of all men."93 "Even though they contain matters imperfect and provisional,"94 the books of the Old Testament bear witness to the whole divine pedagogy of God’s saving love: these writings "are a storehouse of sublime teaching on God and of sound wisdom on human life, as well as a wonderful treasury of prayers; in them, too, the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way."95 [Emphasis added]

'Nuff said.

Yes the old testament is great! But, as said above me, it just isn’t the same without the complement of the New Testament.

Anyways, I’m off to bed, mostly just wanted to point out this little loophole from your post.

 

[Nicene]

The quintisencial arguement against sola scriptura comes from Christ himself. He had to come down and teach what scripture actually meant:

John 5:39: You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; 40: yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

And he further tells them:

John 5:41: I do not receive glory from men. 42: But I know that you have not the love of God within you. 43: I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not receive me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive.

But Christ commissions the apostles because sola scriptura obviously is not enough, they have been searching scripture and missed it. So Christ gives them the same power (via the Holy Spirit, who will lead them into all truth)

John 13:20: Truly, truly, I say to you, he who receives any one whom I send receives me; and he who receives me receives him who sent me."

They do not come in their own name (self appointed bishops) but in the name of Christ, to tell everyone what scripture reveals and to tell them what it means, in Christs name. They are given a special chrism. Which they pass on through the laying on of hands. Christ’s power does not fade into the sunset with the death of the apostles.

Can one argue against Christ?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

'Nuff said.

Yes the old testament is great! But, as said above me, it just isn’t the same without the complement of the New Testament.

Anyways, I’m off to bed, mostly just wanted to point out this little loophole from your post.

Did you miss the last part? “the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way.”
It also does not make a statement about personal interpretation (Sola scriptura). The successors to the apostles, through the undying power of Christ and the laying on of hands, are pretty swift. Then again Christ gave them this Chrism.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[John_Henry]

Fredricks:

This premise is untrue and we will show it as such. After this, I do not see how any Catholic can claim that God left his people without a written guide.The early Church always had scripture. We call it the Old Testament.

Well, yeah. But those Scriptures did not contain the entirety of the Christian message. You find me the Old Testament verse that tells us that (to paraphrase) to be circumcised is to be severed from Christ. And that actually makes our point. The Scriptures that they had do not contain the fullness of the message. There is need of an oral Tradition.

 

[awfulthings9]

So?

Nobody denies this, Frederick. But since one could not fashion a Christian church on the Old Testament, we only deny that the New Testament was not the guide for the early Christians.

Straw man argument.

Please stop with the fallacies. This isn’t the way to win souls.

 

[Joe_Gloor]

Jesus needed to explain to the disciples on the road to Emmaus how the Old Testament revealed Him.

Luke 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself. …
Luke 24:32They asked each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?”

These disciples quickly returned to Jerusalem to explain these things to the rest.
From this point, the Tradition of seeing Jesus as the fulfillment of the Old Testament was begun.

 

[Fredricks]

I do believe that people are attributing statements to me that I have not made. They have reached conclusions I have not made. If I may:

After this, I do not see how any Catholic can claim that God left his people without a written guide.The early Church always had scripture. We call it the Old Testament.

Does anyone disagree with this statement?

This does not say there will never be a New Testament. Never said that.
This does not say the New Testament is unneccessary.
Never said that.
This does not say that Christians are “under the law”.
Never said that.

This DOES MEAN, you must say we had a written guide AND oral tradition according to your beliefs.

You MUST if you are faithful to your Cathechism and Gods word, affirm both from now on when you post about the early Christian church.

As a side note, do not quote 2nd Peter unless you are going to do put the part that comes next and affirms what WE are saying.

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

2Pe 1:21 **For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost. **

 

[Fredricks]

montanaman:

Well, DUH.

Hello Montanaman.

 

[DeFide]

If the first Christians taught Sola Scriptura, why isn’t it in the Scripture they wrote? By the Sola Scriptura model, if it is not in Scripture, it is not to be required for belief, correct?

Here’s your task:

1. Define “Sola Scriptura” (good luck settling on one defn. among the various Protestants out there).
2. Find that definition in Scripture (not possible).

geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/solascriptura21.html
geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/staplessolascriptura.html

 

[Nicene]

Does anyone disagree with this statement?

Nope, the question is, who has been given the ability (Chrism) to interpret.

This premise is untrue and we will show it as such. After this, I do not see how any Catholic can claim that God left his people without a written guide.The early Church always had scripture. We call it the Old Testament.

When was the Old Testament canonized and by whom?

If you say the Jews at Jamnia, then you state that God was with the Jews and not the apostles and the church. Therefore leading the Jews (who rejected the NT and greek writings) into all truth.

The Catholic Church clearly teaches that the Old Testament HAS always been inspired. That include 33 CE to whenever the first gospel was written. The early church has ALWAYS had a written guide, even before the first word of the New Testament was written.

Yes but who was given authority to interpret. Your first statement is that Sola Scriptura is the written guide of the church. Obviously, as pointed out above, Sola Scriptura didn’t work, it needed someone with authority to interpret it, the first was Christ. Then he gives the same to the apostles and the Holy Spirit will lead them into all truth. Your claim is a false dichotomy. Attempting to shift the focus now hurts your arguement.

Is it the Holy Spirit who guides into truth or Scripture? So far your claim has been scripture, via Sola Scriptura. You have taken the Holy Spirit out of the picture.

This DOES MEAN, you must say we had a written guide AND oral tradition according to your beliefs.

You MUST if you are faithful to your Cathechism and Gods word, affirm both from now on when you post about the early Christian church.

This DOES MEAN under your doctrine of Sola Scriptura that your second premise:

“This does not say the New Testament is unneccessary.”

is not necessary, though you never said that. By default it cannot be both.

This means you MUST if you are faithful to Sola Scriptura admit that the oral teachings of the apostles were not necessary. And by extension the NT. You were left with Scripture alone (OT) to guide you. If you a Holy Man of God you have no need of the NT.

As a side note, do not quote 2nd Peter unless you are going to do put the part that comes next and affirms what WE are saying.

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

Without doubt. Or are you saying Christ was led by Sola Scriptura and was not a Holy man of God moved by the Holy Spirit? Further, that Christ did not pass on this Chrism?

By your own arguement you just disproved Sola Scriptura.

Do you accept that Christ alone had the ability to interpret scripture and passed that ability onto the apostles and their successors? Or is Scripture alone enough (The OT if you are to remain faithful to Sola Scriptura).

May God bless you.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Joe_Gloor]

I think the point we are trying to make is not that there were no authoritative Scriptures prior to early Christianity. Far from it. The meaning of those Scriptures was obtuse until they were fulfilled by Christ. And even after that time, they require the correct interpretation in order to be understood properly.
The correct interpretation is the Traditional one of the Church.
For example, using the fact that the Old Testament is fulfulled by the New Testament, Mary, the Mother of God, can be seen as the NT fulfillment of the Ark of the Covenant in that she carried the Word of God, the Manna that came down from Heaven and the rod of Jesse which budded - all Old Testament images of Jesus.
This opens up the field of Mariology and is responsible, in part, for the Dogmas concerning her, eg. Absent of Original Sin, Ever Virgin and Assumed into Heaven.

 

[awfulthings9]

Fredricks:

I do believe that people are attributing statements to me that I have not made. They have reached conclusions I have not made. If I may:

Does anyone disagree with this statement?

This does not say there will never be a New Testament. Never said that.
This does not say the New Testament is unneccessary.
Never said that.
This does not say that Christians are “under the law”.
Never said that.

This DOES MEAN, you must say we had a written guide AND oral tradition according to your beliefs.

You MUST if you are faithful to your Cathechism and Gods word, affirm both from now on when you post about the early Christian church.

As a side note, do not quote 2nd Peter unless you are going to do put the part that comes next and affirms what WE are saying.

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

2Pe 1:21 **For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost. **

Fredericks,
Your ability to read right past what we wrote is astounding in that it happens over and over again.

I, for one, never accused you of saying that “there will never be a New Testament”, “the New Testament is unneccessary”, or that “that Christians are “under the law”.” In fact, reading through the other posts, most of the others did not either.

What I am accusing you of is providing the “straw man” argument that Catholics use the argument that the early Christians never had a “written guide”. I’ve never, ever seen a Catholic apologist use that argument.

What I have seen are Catholic apologists, including myself, argue that the early Christians did not have a complete written copy (if any at all in some communities) of the New Covenant or Testament. This is true. After all, the Old Testament is not sufficient (as you would agree) for one to understand the complexities and fullfillment of the New Testament.

If someone ever did say they didn’t have a “written guide”, the context would be to the teachings of Christ, not a “written guide” in general.

You have created a straw man thread argument by picking a nonsense “argument”, that only the most misinformed Catholic would use and refuting it as if it were a cornerstone of our rejection of sola-Scriptura.

Could you please reference where you have seen a professional apologist saying that the early Christians had no “written guide” at all? By starting this thread, you are doing the same thing you accuse us of doing, which is "attributing statements to [us] that [we] have not made.

Again, as was done so often in the foundations thread, you are arguing against points that no serious apologist would ever make.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Fred,

Amen, we Catholics say to all of your bibical quotes. Your personal interpertation are huge problem, it’s them we take exception with. We prefer to believe the scripture as it was taught by the apostles, as has been passed on to us by those selected by Christ.

We believe that both the old and new testaments are the inspired word of God. We also believe that personal interpertations of scripture can be contrary to the teachings of Christ when taught by ordinary man. To guard agianst false teachings or ordinary men, Christ spoke of a church, he is the bridegroom and the church is his bride. The two became one. Christ is the head of the Catholic Church.

God’s chosen people have always relied on the oral tradition to interpert scripture. Jesus never preached to rebel against the Jewish law/tradition. Why do you? It’s not scriptural.

What “we” are you refering to in your posts.

 

[rwoehmke]

Are we to assume then that the OP is a Messianic Jew? If the OT was sufficent unto the task, why did Paul and the others bother writing anything down?

 

[Fredricks]

awfulthings9:

Could you please reference where you have seen a professional apologist saying that the early Christians had no “written guide” at all? By starting this thread, you are doing the same thing you accuse us of doing, which is "attributing statements to [us] that [we] have not made.

Again, as was done so often in the foundations thread, you are arguing against points that no serious apologist would ever make.

How do I know who is “serious and professional” before I answer with quotes?
Please clarify