Did Jews follow "Sola Scriptura"?

[adf417]

There is no single scripture since the Trinity is a compilation of observations about the nature of God that we see in Scripture.

Which is why i asked the question…

 

[Hodos]

No not really. If it had there would be no need for the early councils.

Actually there was. The early councils of the Church didn’t innovate new doctrine. They examined scripture and formulated creedal statements for the purpose of catechizing what was already in the scriptures. The issue that occurs in these discussions is when there is a conflation between declaring what God has already declared through the coming of his Son, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and the recording of this revelation in scripture with the authority (which God hasn’t given) to declare doctrine other than what was received.

 

[Walk-worthy]

Even our Lord was found, at age 12, seated among the teachers

That’s very insightful, po18! Good post!
This topic is a complicated question to answer. In my opinion, the Jews had their Rabbis (similar to our priests). Some rabbis interpreted correctly and believed in Christ (Nicodemus’ testimony). Others rejected Christ! I would say the Jewish overuse of Sola Scriptura is what led to the bitter argument that eventually had Christ crucified, and under-use of Sola Scriptura led to the failure of leadership and destruction of the temple and Jerusalem! Either way, prophecy was fulfilled!

 

[Walk-worthy]

A new one every week in the US.

praying to/with the saints isn’t necromancy or consulting the spirits, it’s just asking other members of the Body of Christ,

Then it’s perfectly fine to pray to Moses and Elijah, which according to Matthew’s gospel brings into account the old testament leaders into the presence of our Lord! A more profound miracle than any beatified saint! But that’s just my opinion!

WW

 

[Walk-worthy]

I’m not even sure if Sola Scriptura is a term applicable to the study of Judaism! It sounded like an interesting question, and I gave it my best shot!

 

[LuciusMaximus]

I never really considered that, but it makes sense. Is this done by any Catholics, I wonder? If this is true, then it’s pretty awesome, as who wouldn’t want Moses and Elijah praying specifically for them?

 

[Walk-worthy]

Is this done by any Catholics, I wonder

I don’t know, but that’s an interesting question!
What I find interesting, when the Apostles prayed, there were no saints either! They prayed to God, i.e. (Matt 6: The Lords Prayer), which means intercessory prayer was probably non-existant.

 

[adf417]

They examined scripture and formulated creedal statements for the purpose of catechizing what was already in the scriptures.

Which was not agreed upon until the end of the council. Not by a long shot. Which is why i ask my original question about the Trinity being explicit in scripture. The council was called because of this disagreement.

Peace!!!

 

[Kaninchen]

That was inevitable - as is the process of inventing Judaisms to suit those arguments.

 

[ColoradoCatholic]

Its absolutely done by Catholics, you should ask all of the Angels and Saints in Heaven to pray for you every day!

Even though Elijah technically isn’t in “heaven” yet…he never died…but that’s a different topic lol

 

[Hodos]

Which was not agreed upon until the end of the council. Not by a long shot. Which is why i ask my original question about the Trinity being explicit in scripture. The council was called because of this disagreement.

Actually, there was pretty broad agreement even during Apostolic days. Luke for example is cited as scripture in one of Paul’s letters. Peter refers to Paul’s writings as scripture as well. By the second century the majority of the NT canon was pretty much agreed upon. However, your timeline doesn’t even make sense. The Council of Nicea was held in 325, long after the writing of the scriptures, and before any local council made a “ruling” on the content of the scriptures, and yet they cited scripture as evidence in the various documents addressing the relationship of Christ to the Father. If you read ante-Nicene theologians such as Ireneaus, Hippolytus, Novatian, Tertulian, etc., they all cite scripture in their formulations. Even Athenasius, who was a post-Nicea author, appealed to scripture as the basis for his understanding of the Trinity, prior to what you guys refer to as the first council that declared the canon of scripture. History just doesn’t support your conclusions my friend.

 

[JonNC]

I know this has been hashed out plenty but can you guys tell me what scripture explicitly teaches the Trinity? I know of many that teach it implicitly but im asking for explicit teaching.

I think, looking at the expense of scripture, from Genesis to Christ’s baptism, we see more than implicitly, the doctrine of the Trinity.
The early councils carefully looked at this, fought against false teaching about it, and properly determined the doctrine.

 

[adf417]

History just doesn’t support your conclusions my friend.

If you think my argument is “scripture wasn’t used to defend the Trinity” then you would be right but that is not what im asking or arguing. Citing scripture reference is not the same as explicit evidence of scripture. The simple fact that there was a council would tend to agree with me.

I think, looking at the expense of scripture, from Genesis to Christ’s baptism, we see more than implicitly, the doctrine of the Trinity.

“Looking over the expanse of scripture”? Isn’t this the definition of implicit?

Peace!!!

 

[Hodos]

If you think my argument is “scripture wasn’t used to defend the Trinity” then you would be right but that is not what im asking or arguing. Citing scripture reference is not the same as explicit evidence of scripture. The simple fact that there was a council would tend to agree with me.

Not really. It only demonstrates the simple fact that some people either don’t know the full counsel of scripture, or willfully disregard it. Sin is nothing new. Most of the attendees at the Council of Nicea had never even met Arius, much less knew what he taught or why he taught it. The fact the there was overwhelming agreement on the condemnation of Arius and adopting the Nicene Creed after hearing what Arius was actually teaching actually tends to support my argument rather than yours. They rejected Arius’ teaching because it was a violation of what had been handed down by the apostles as demonstrated by scripture.

 

[adf417]

Most of the attendees at the Council of Nicea had never even met Arius, much less knew what he taught or why he taught it

Not true…

In reference to the theological question the council was divided in the beginning into three parties.1327

The orthodox party, which held firmly to the deity of Christ, was at first in the minority, but in talent and influence the more weighty. At the head of it stood the bishop (or “pope”) Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, Macarius of Jerusalem, Marcellus of Ancyra, Rosins of Cordova (the court bishop), and above all the Alexandrian archdeacon, Athanasius, who, though small and young, and, according to later practice not admissible to a voice or a seat in a council, evinced more zeal and insight than all, and gave promise already of being the future head of the orthodox party.

The Arians or Eusebians numbered perhaps twenty bishops, under the lead of the influential bishop Eusebius of Nicemedia (afterwards of Constantinople), who was allied with the imperial family, and of the presbyter Arius, who attended at the command of the emperor, and was often called upon to set forth his views.1328 To these also belonged Theognis of Nicaea, Maris of Chalcedon, and Menophantus of Ephesus; embracing in this remarkable way the bishops of the several seats of the orthodox ecumenical councils.

The majority, whose organ was the renowned historian Eusebius of Caesarea, took middle ground between the right and the left, but bore nearer the right, and finally went over to that side. Many of them had an orthodox instinct, but little discernment; others were disciples of Origen, or preferred simple biblical expression to a scholastic terminology; others had no firm convictions, but only uncertain opinions, and were therefore easily swayed by the arguments of the stronger party or by mere external considerations.

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.xii.iv.html

Peace!!!

 

[VeryBlessed]

I didn’t read all the comments so far, but I wanted to throw something out there from a different perspective. As a concept, would Sola Scriptura have had any real significance to peoples born before the invention of the printing press? Before the printing press, nobody had Bibles in their homes, right? How many could even read? In a sense, most people were probably getting their understanding of their faith strictly through oral teaching alone, which would feel like “tradition” to us today.

I don’t think we have any idea just how much the printing press impacts our view of scripture and religious faith. We are projecting a post-printing-press mindset on people who were completely without it.

If sola scriptura is supposed to be so foundational to true belief, then what was God thinking, sending Jesus some 1500 years before the invention of the printing press?

 

[JonNC]

Looking over the expanse of scripture”? Isn’t this the definition of implicit?

Not at all. One can put a strong case together from OT and NT.
This from Dave Armstrong:

It is ultimately a deep mystery, because we can’t fully comprehend how three can be one. It seems to go against logic. Yet the Bible plainly teaches it, with many and varied proofs, and so we must accept the revealed doctrine in faith, bowing to the fact that God’s thoughts are much higher than ours (Is 55:9).
The Trinity is a classic case where there are few “direct” proofs, but many many deductive or indirect proofs, which can hardly be dismissed by any person who accepts the inspiration of Holy Scripture: God’s revelation.

Wait. I just used Dave Armstrong to defend my position.

 

[JonNC]

I didn’t read all the comments so far, but I wanted to throw something out there from a different perspective. As a concept, would Sola Scriptura have had any real significance to peoples born before the invention of the printing press? Before the printing press, nobody had Bibles in their homes, right? How many could even read? In a sense, most people were probably getting their understanding of their faith strictly through oral teaching alone, which would feel like “tradition” to us today.

Yes, the fact is that literacy and the availability of text made it necessary that people learned from the oral and artistic presentation of the word. But sola scriptura is actually a practice of the Church, not the laity.

I don’t think we have any idea just how much the printing press impacts our view of scripture and religious faith. We are projecting a post-printing-press mindset on people who were completely without it.

For some who have changed sola scriptura into personal interpretation, yes.

If sola scriptura is supposed to be so foundational to true belief, then what was God thinking, sending Jesus some 1500 years before the invention of the printing press?

It isn’t. It is a hermeneutical principle.

 

[BohemianBrother]

Sola Scriptura is a practice of the whole church to hold all doctrine accountable to scripture, as scripture is the Word of God and also the most reliable witness of the gospel. It has absolutely nothing to do with people reading the Bible at their homes.

Private reading of Bibles came later, partly because of the greater emphasis on Scripture, but it is not at all an integral part of the whole concept of Sola Scriptura.

 

[adf417]

Wait. I just used Dave Armstrong to defend my position.

I suppose we must have different definitions of implicit and explicit. I will continue waiting for these “direct proofs”.