Did Jews follow "Sola Scriptura"?

[stoplooklisten]

There was no “Sola Scriptura” for Abraham.
Abraham had no Scriptures except perhaps for oral tradition and the Book of Job. The Hebrew Scriptures didn’t begin to be written until Moses picked up his pen and that didn’t happen right way.

There was no “Sola Scriptura” at the time of the Exodus. They followed the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night and crossed the Red Sea. Moses had authority. Aaron and the priests had authority." Later, the prophets spoke the Word of the LORD even before it was written down. “Sola Scriptura” is not a historical doctrine. It’s contemporary.

 

[mcq72]

Sola Scriptura” is not a historical doctrine. It’s contemporary.

Well of course. It can only be “contemporary” after it is written. No one suggests otherwise.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Please provide your understanding of the usage of the principle of sola scriptura.

There are several passages in both the Old, as well as the New, Testaments that support sola scriptura. Deuteronomy 4:2 describes it, as well as Deuteronomy 12. Jesus rebuked the Jewish leaders for “adding” to the word of God “for the sake of your traditions” (Matthew 15:1-9). The apostle Paul tells the church of Corinth not to “exceed what is written.” The Bereans were “more noble-minded” than those in Thessalonica, because they didn’t just go by what the apostle Paul told them, but instead compared what he said TO Scripture (Acts 17:10-11). The apostle Peter stated as real as his experience with Jesus at the Transfiguration was, we have the word of God made “more sure.” The apostle Philip told Nathanael that they found the Messiah based on “the Law of Moses” & also “the Prophets.” Had the religious leaders based their understanding of Who the Messiah was to be, based strictly on Scripture like Philip did - and not “added” their man-made “traditions” - they would have never rejected Him.

11 out of the 14 times the word “tradition(s)” is used, it is used NEGATIVELY to rebuked man-made traditions. The 3 times Paul uses it positively in his epistles to the churches of Corinth & Thessalonia, he is talking “traditions” that were already written down, like when he says “traditions by word or by letter” - meaning the same tradition spread either verbally or in writing…not different traditions spread one way by letter & a different tradition by word.

Sola scriptura teaches any belief, doctrine, tradition, etc. cannot add to, take away from, or Scripture, which is taught throughout Scripture from the Torah to the book of Revelation.

 

[mcq72]

Read Nehemiah 8:5-8 . Ezra and the scribes had authority to interpret - authority from God. No writing can grant such authority. Even our Lord was found, at age 12, seated among the teachers and doctors of the law - not the street corner preacher who had his own ideas.

Not sure how this contradicts SS…in the sense that both Ezra and the Levites and Jesus expounded not on history or tradition but the Written Word.

Not sure SS denies a teacher, prophet, even a Savior.

 

[twf]

Jesus himself asserts the authority of oral tradition / teaching authority. Take Matthew 23:1 where he says that the Pharisees have real authority to teach / interpret as they “sit on the chair of Moses”.
You mention 2 Thess 2:15. The plain reading of the verse makes it pretty clear that St Paul expects them to accept BOTH the written and oral teachings. He distinguishes the two. If they are the same traditions, why does he emphasize that they must obey both categories - written AND oral?

I was raised Evangelical Protestant, and one of the reasons I left was because of Sola Scriptura. The doctrine is self-defeating. Protestants claim Scripture alone is the sole source of authority, yet Scripture doesn’t teach this anywhere! Protestants rely on their own ORAL tradition of Sola Scriptura. It’s a foundational doctrine of Protestantism that, by its very nature, disproves itself. How can Scripture be the only source of doctrine if Scripture doesn’t teach such?
Beyond that, what about the canon? If there is no external source of authority, how can you be sure that the books you have in your Bible are correct? The Bible itself never included an inspired table of contents…

 

[mcq72]

If they are the same traditions, why does he emphasize that they must obey both categories - written AND oral?

Yes, both. Yet the best way to know the oral is thru the written. And the best oral is from the written.

 

[mcq72]

Protestants claim Scripture alone is the sole source of authority, yet Scripture doesn’t teach this anywhere!

I would leave such a church also. Thankfully there are at least 29,000 other churches to choose from.

But seriously, most churches who practice SS view of scripture certainly do not deny church authorities. After all, they are biblical.

 

[mcq72]

If there is no external source of authority, how can you be sure that the books you have in your Bible are correct?

And who is to say an external source of authority is equal to the very written Word, unless it be in accord with it? The preacher, teacher, council/ magistetium decree is only authoritative when it is one with the written Word.

“To those knowledgeable of the Lord’s decrees, keep them, as many as are written.”…Barnabus

 

[Peter_Jericho]

I’m open to hearing arguments, but I’m skeptical that anyone could offer a good argument that Jews followed Sola Scriptura.

As to whether Sola Scriptura works … well Protestants (particularly of Evangelical/Fundamentalist variety, at least here in America) are definitely extremely successful. But I guess I couldn’t say that sola scriptura works in the sense that I don’t believe it is true.

 

[mcq72]

I’m open to hearing arguments, but I’m skeptical that anyone could offer a good argument that Jews followed Sola Scriptura.

As to whether Sola Scriptura works … well Protestants (particularly of Evangelical/Fundamentalist variety, at least here in America) are definitely extremely successful . But I guess I couldn’t say that sola scriptura works in the sense that I don’t believe it is true.

Thank for the nice “successful” comment.

As to arguments for SS, even in OT, being successful, I am reminded of Bishop Sheen comment about perception and the CC:

but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”

While hate is wrong word for SS, (as you say,disbelieve),however the wrong perception aspect applies I think.

 

[mcq72]

Which was not agreed upon until the end of the council.

And what did the council use as a norm on the matter? Was scripture silent? Was Athanasius toothless, with no biblical reasoning?

In fact I thought both sides of the issue used scripture. This still lends to the credibility of Scriptures normative intent, despite twisting by some to their own destruction.

Jesus and Satan’s dialogue in the wilderness temptation are good example of the mormative essence of the Written Word. It was correct use of the Word that made the victorious stand, even by God Himself in Jesus. We also have no greater authority in Christ than His written word.

We say but we mimic the teacher and prophet or apostle or pope or a council with authority also, and well we should, as long as they also made their teaching and prophecy and decrees according to the Written Word.

From my understanding of Luther and this solely resting on scripture, even at his trial, that that is all he asked for, to be shown from Scripture his error. The " because I, or we, said so" as authoritative officers of Christ in his church is not necesarily, unconditionally , sufficient.

The Didache says to “not create a schism and pacify those who contend”. Well, it seems like Luther could have been pacified if his judges would have shown how councils and popes have justified their teaching and practices thru Scriptural reasoning. Apparently they did not, instead finding that an affront to their authority.

The first council in Jerusalem did so.
You would think with such church leaders themselves, the apostles, that their say would be enough. Yet even they towards the end of council garnered Scriptural reasoning, understanding, justification from the OT, as cited by James.

Peter and the apostles also used the superlative essence of Scripture in their gospel message, even in the first sermon at Pentecost. Yes they were apostles to us believers, but to the unconverted merely fisherman, folluwers of just another rabbi. Yet when they expounded on OT Scriptures, with all its piercing prophecies of and surrounding Christ that was quite authoritative, beyond the fisherman.

They certainly said like Billy Graham, " The bible says…" many times, as an authority seperate, even above. themselves, even though they too were authorized to add to it.

 

[adf417]

In fact I thought both sides of the issue used scripture. This still lends to the credibility of Scriptures normative intent, despite twisting by some to their own destruction.

Isnt this the whole issue? The twisting by some to their own destruction is not realized by the rest until after the normative intent has prevailed, right?

Peace!!!

 

[annem]

The same is true, incidentally, of Early Christians. For the first few centuries of Christianity there were local or regional books that remained unknown in other areas. Examples would be books such as the Gospel of Thomas, or the Hebrew Gospels. More widely known non-canonical Christian books would include the Gospel of James. For various reasons these all ended up being rejected by the Church and they mostly vanished into obscurity for centuries (except James, oddly enough, which remained at least somewhat well known throughout Christian history).
*

*

Sorry, this is simply incorrect. You cite the Gnostic Thomas, written about 170 AD, as if it were accepted anywhere among what even the anti Christian hater Celsus called “the church of the multitudes”. This is just without any basis of fact.

It was a GNostic writing. Anyone could see that, even during a brief reading. AMong other idiocies it suggested women couldn’t even be saved. It was a century too late for addition into the canon, even if it had been pro Christian, and had not the slightest evidence tying it to early Christians. Never, ever under consideration for the canon.

Then you mistakenly tie it to James. Utterly different. The protevangelium was a pious work. Very pro Christian, and much loved by Christians even throughout the Middle Ages.

 

[billsherman]

Sorry, this is simply incorrect.

You realize that you’re making exactly the same point I made, right? None of the non-canonical books saw wide acceptance, but they were all accepted by someone, somewhere. I mean, at least the people who wrote them, right?

I wish we knew more about the people that accepted the Gospel of Thomas. They were obviously Gnostics, and they attached some greater significance to both Thomas and James, but we don’t know much more than that. We’ve found a few partial copies of it in Egypt, so perhaps it was written and used there exclusively. But we can be certain it had a certain degree of popularity because we’ve found enough partial manuscripts to know it had some degree of circulation.

As we both mentioned, none of these books were accepted universally, and none of them made it into the canon for various reasons.

 

[mcq72]

Isnt this the whole issue? The twisting by some to their own destruction is not realized by the rest until after the normative intent has prevailed, right?

Yes, but for example was then Anthanasius considered equally authoritative to the Scripture he declared correctly ? Did scripture bow to or serve Anthanasius or vice versa ?

 

[adf417]

There are three legs to the stool. Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium. Leave one out or put one above the other and everything falls.

Peace!!!

 

[mcq72]

There are three legs to the stool. Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium. Leave one out or put one above the other and everything falls.

no problem, but does Scripture bow to tradition or a magisterium. What God writes is not conditional to a magisterium or tradition, but a right tradition and and a right decreeing magisterium is conditional to God’s say so in writing.

So yes, have a tradition, and a magisterium, to serve the truth of God’s intent thru and in His Writing .In my opinion, the CC usually abides in such fashion, except that she removes the conditionality to any of her rightness, by saying she can never err in matters of teaching and faith.

Side note, those who err thru out history sometimes cite tradition, and maybe councils, and leaders and teachers (magisterium of sorts), not just scripture.

 

[annem]

None of the non-canonical books saw wide acceptance, but they were all accepted by someone, somewhere. I mean, at least the people who wrote them, right?
*

*

Sorry, my response was confusing. I certainly wasn’t clear on my main point. So let me try to make it clearer.

We were talking about the formation of canon. Your point is that some non-canonical books were accepted by “someone, somewhere”. It is true enough that some non Christian Gnostics accepted Thomas. But this had nothing whatsoever to do with the canon, nothing at all. It’s like saying, some worshipers of Isis or some other pagan mystery religion did not have their religious books accepted into the Bible.

The Gnostic texts were never, could never, have been under consideration for canon. The first tenet of most of the Gnostic schools was that God the Father was evil. So obviously they weren’t Christian. Even Celsus called the Gnostics utterly distinct from Christians, small schools that were not attached in any way to 'the church of the multitudes" .

I can’t imagine what you mean by “they attached some greater significance to both Thomas and James”. What they? The two texts are radically different. They belonged to utterly, radically distinct groups. James is a pious Christian text, clearly much loved by the majority of early Christians and completely in line with the beliefs of the great church.

And there weren’t “various reasons” neither was accepted into canon. Thomas and other Gnostic texts were never, ever, ever under consideration for canon. Because they weren’t Christian, let alone canon. James was a pious tract written long after the accepted date for the closing of canon, even if there weren’t questions about how much was myth.

If you want to talk about a text that didn’t become canon even though it could have, consider Clement. But James? Way too late.

 

[billsherman]

can’t imagine what you mean by “they attached some greater significance to both Thomas and James”. What they?

I meant the people. The Apostle Thomas and James the Just. Both are described in extremely favorable light in the Gospel of Thomas.

 

[TMC]

The Gnostic texts were never, could never, have been under consideration for canon.

I suppose this depends both on what one believes constitutes “consideration” and what one considers a Gnostic text. Certainly lots of early Christians used texts that today would be considered to be in error in various ways, including texts considered Gnostic.

The first tenet of most of the Gnostic schools was that God the Father was evil. So obviously they weren’t Christian.

I think this is both a misinterpretation of Gnosticism and a bit unfair to those that held those beliefs. They certainly believed themselves to be Christian. They did not believe God to be evil, they believed that the God of the Old Testament was not really God. (But all of that is pretty far adrift from the topic.)