happilycatholic,
It seems to me that your basic question or questioning kind of assumes certain definitions of sola Scriptura or even of Tradition.
As far as sola Scriptura, you seem to adopt a definition that is like the bible alone and completely alone.
Hi Joe:
I wish you had been more specific here I could have responded. These statements are rather vague. I’d love to respond if you’d elaborate with some detail on the comments I’ve made. What definitions do you think I’ve adopted?
Now Lutherans who certainly were and are sola Scriptura have never treated things like that.
Again, like what? Please either paste my comments or at least refer to particular comments so that I can respond appropriately.
What we believe is indeed consistent with the early fathers, and that includes sola Scriptura.
Probably the best treatment of that would be in volume 1 of Martin Chemnitz’s “Examination of the Council of Trent”. He spends a lot of time on the question.
Just some of the Early Fathers’ opinions would be sufficient. What this amounts to is his opinion of the Council when we already know his opinion as he is a Reformer so we’re back where we started.
I would also point out that you reference the early church as if there was no scripture. There was no time since Moses without sufficient scripture. Indeed if you actually believe what is written in the New Testament you see a reference to Paul going into the synagogs and teaching the Gospel of Jesus from scripture. The synagogs in Paul’s time has sufficient scripture to teach the Gospel. So there was no here’s tradition and it carries things and then later comes scripture. Sure the New Testment writings were not there in the earliest days but if you read them, some of them say why they were written.
Paul is using what Scripture to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ? I have a feeling
that was where Tradition came in. As it relates to the Old Testament (the Torah) yes, Paul would have made references to such because as we know, Christ came to fulfill the OT prophesies. Paul was not preaching the Gospel
from the Torah.
However, what I actually said was:
“So, how many of us truly believe that without a single Bible or a single written word from the NT, Christianity would have failed to spread and take hold on the world as it did?”
My OP has gotten a little lost in the twists and curves of conversation, but that’s okay. My position is on the NT as it relates to the spread of Christianity.
Would we need scripture if the Apostle Paul was standing in our midst teaching, no, let’s be honest about that, his authority would be plenty sufficient. **But he’s a lot different than any individual or group today. **
You are making an uprecedented distinction between Paul and the Church of today. Please show me where Christ said that the Church of today should be any different than the Church as
He led. He became different after his death because he became a Saint. He was no different then because he was but a man teaching the Word.
Anyway, here’s one example that shows the scriptures were the standard even then, it’s those noble Bereans.
Act 17:10 The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue.
Act 17:11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
Act 17:12 Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men.
(Again, we are referencing the Torah here, not NT Scriptures. The Gospel of Jesus Christ was spread orally and by Epistles written by the Apostles that were later compiled into what we know as NT Scripture.)
However in response, do you notice how they had to go to the Synagogue to do this? A person would not have been able to just walk into a Synagogue and go thumbing through the Torah. The Torah would have been a hand written one and protected in an Ark or temple. The average household did not have Scripture and people did not
learn how to be Jewish in the same way Protestants claim to do when they go to church and read their Bibles. These folks were born Jewish. They lived, breathed, slept, worked and ate Jewish. Much different than what you are referencing with today’s version of living by sola scriptura. They would not have known what you were talking about since “*sola Torah” *would have been something profoundly superfluous to them.
Torah was the law, not just guidance.
Notice how they could tell what Paul and Silas told them was true, they examined scripture, the New Testament Scriptures didn’t exist then. So even from the Old Testament scriptures they could test what was said and due to that, many came to believe.
No first we have tradition and people are accepted because of who they are and then scripture shows up, but instead even Paul was accepted because he stood up to examination of scripture.
You are using Paul’s instruction to take what Christ is saying about the Gospel and compare it to Scripture to make an argument for sola scriptura. The problem with that is that Paul is not telling them to disbelieve Christ if what he says is not
within the Scripture, but only if it’s
contrary to Scripture:
*“May all the hearers of the gospel become like those of Berea, receiving the word with readiness of mind, and searching the Scriptures daily, whether the things preached to them are so. (Ac 17:16-21)” *
Notice does not say “whether the things preached to them are Scripture”, it says "whether the things preached to them are
so’. In other words - true.
We know this because Christ is not mentioned in the Scriptures they would be reading (as he is only identifiable as the Word) but…the fulfillment of God’s Word
is. Therefore Christ may not be preaching the Torah word for word (which he did not, think of the times Christ
appeared to go against the teachings), but He is fulfilling their prophesies.
For this understanding they must rely on the Christ and the Apostles interpretation of the OT to know and more importantly
believe that Christ has come in fulfillment of them. Because if they were looking for Christ the Messiah in the OT and all the miracles He would perform and all that, they would not find it. Some of them went by “sola Torah” and did not become Christians and rather remained Jews.
Right?
