If Sola Scriptura...why didn't Jesus have his words written down

[Newbie2]

Perhaps this is more of a question for Protestants, but if Scripture is all important to the exclusion of Tradition, why didn’t Christ himself designate one of the Apostles as a scribe to write down everything he taught?

 

[bengal_fan]

Perhaps this is more of a question for Protestants, but if Scripture is all important to the exclusion of Tradition, why didn’t Christ himself designate one of the Apostles as a scribe to write down everything he taught?

well, if the Holy Spirit inspired the gospels, then He did. just not while He was here on earth.

 

[Mystic_of_God]

Perhaps this is more of a question for Protestants, but if Scripture is all important to the exclusion of Tradition, why didn’t Christ himself designate one of the Apostles as a scribe to write down everything he taught?

Yer preachin to the choir

 

[adam_in_ohio]

Perhaps this is more of a question for Protestants, but if Scripture is all important to the exclusion of Tradition, QUOTE]

Scripture is a Tradition.

 

[Harmony1988]

well, if the Holy Spirit inspired the gospels, then He did. just not while He was here on earth.

Yes, but someone had to discern which was authentic and which wasn’t, it was through the guidance of the spirit. That means whatever power was bestowed on them, it was an authoritative power. Not given to the general public

Which doesn’t seem to be practiced in the Protestant faiths

 

[bengal_fan]

Yes, but someone had to discern which was authentic and which wasn’t, it was through the guidance of the spirit. That means whatever power was bestowed on them, it was an authoritative power. Not given to the general public

OR… the bible gave them the standard by which to know which writings were inspired and which weren’t. it is clear in the NT that the basis of the faith is the teachings of the apostles (“they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teachings” Acts 2). therefore, the bible gives the standard for the infallible books. they had to be apostolic teachings. people knew which books could be directly attributed to the apostles (even luke and mark and a few of the others could go directly back to an apostle from whom they got their information). the only books that were really in argument were hebrews and revelation, but the evidence of them being linked to an apostle (paul and john respectively) seemed to convince the majority of the council.

so the argument could go that the council was guided by God (just like any group of Christians together, but i do give more guidance to councils than a college bible study…lol), but had been given a biblical standard by which to test their decision… “is this book/letter from an apostle?”.

incidentally, i don’t hold to sola, but prima scriptura for this very reason.

Which doesn’t seem to be practiced in the Protestant faiths

tsk, tsk. just because you don’t understand how protestants do it, doesn’t mean they don’t do it. yes, there is a practice of “me, the bible, and Jesus.” but, ultimately, every protestant (just like every other Christian) puts themselves under some authority other than scripture alone. a pastor, an author, etc. are all other authorities used by protestants to interpret scripture.

 

[ForMary]

Perhaps this is more of a question for Protestants, but if Scripture is all important to the exclusion of Tradition, why didn’t Christ himself designate one of the Apostles as a scribe to write down everything he taught?

Do we know for a fact He did not?

Personally, I do not think He did and the reason I think this is because it was (and still is) just as important to Judaism as in Catholicism to maintain a handed down sacred tradition. This meant that people had to actively participate in the education of their children and others. And not simply hand them a book/scroll/wax tablet/etc. or send them to someone who would simply read from one.

Although Catholics eventually did write it down and it is known as the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), just as the Jewish people wrote it down and it is known as the Talmud (with the Mishnah and Gamara).

 

[bengal_fan]

Do we know for a fact He did not?

Personally, I do not think He did and the reason I think this is because it was (and still is) just as important to Judaism as in Catholicism to maintain a handed down sacred tradition. This meant that people had to actively participate in the education of their children and others. And not simply hand them a book/scroll/wax tablet/etc. or send them to someone who would simply read from one.

Although Catholics eventually did write it down and it is known as the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), just as the Jewish people wrote it down and it is known as the Talmud (with the Mishnah and Gamara).

although in judaism, most of these once oral traditions do become written.

 

[Harmony1988]

OR… the bible gave them the standard by which to know which writings were inspired and which weren’t. it is clear in the NT that the basis of the faith is the teachings of the apostles
(“they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teachings” Acts 2). therefore, the bible gives the standard for the infallible books. they had to be apostolic teachings. people knew which books could be directly attributed to the apostles (even luke and mark and a few of the others could go directly back to an apostle from whom they got their information). the only books that were really in argument were hebrews and revelation, but the evidence of them being linked to an apostle (paul and john respectively) seemed to convince the majority of the council.

How can the Bible give them a standard, when they were DETERMINING what was meant to be IN IT. The only material standard for determining the NT was the septuagint.

I don’t know what you are on about with the rest of your statement. The Bible is the OT + NT. People didn’t know which books were directly attributed, infact the general public had nothing to do with it. The texts were in ancient greek, the general public in rome didn’t speak greek at the time of the decisions of what was meant to be in the Bible.

Furthermore, Luke & Mark ARE apostles, what do you mean ‘they had to go back to apostles’

so the argument could go that the council was guided by God (just like any group of Christians together, but i do give more guidance to councils than a college bible study…lol), but had been given a biblical standard by which to test their decision… “is this book/letter from an apostle?”.

How strange that council’s decision was ultimately approved by the Pope for publishing of the Bible. Seems to be going under AUTHORITY to me.

So if God guides any group of Christians, therefore all the different Christians in the world that have different moral beliefs from one another are led by God? Incidentally you are telling me one group of Christians who believe in abortion and the other group who doesn’t are both being led by God?

No wonder we have atheists attacking the faith for irrationality. I’d think a bit more before blindly making statements.

incidentally, i don’t hold to sola, but prima scriptura for this very reason.

Then that’s a problem, based on your flawed propositions

tsk, tsk. just because you don’t understand how protestants do it, doesn’t mean they don’t do it. yes, there is a practice of “me, the bible, and Jesus.” but, ultimately, every protestant (just like every other Christian) puts themselves under some authority other than scripture alone. a pastor, an author, etc. are all other authorities used by protestants to interpret scripture.

Erm so 30,000 different subdenominations under Protestantism is how Protestants adhere to the teaching of authority in the Bible itself? Very nice.

This is just plain ridiculous, you don’t know who is an apostle and who isn’t. The bible can’t give a standard when it’s being determined to be authentic or not. The church fathers went by oral tradition mainly to determine it. Not the Bible.

Bible (to be approved) ---- Need a standard ----
HOW CAN YOU use the thing you are trying to prove to prove itself? It’s like defining a word with the word itself.

 

[bengal_fan]

harmony, you need to calm the **** down.

i replied gently and with respect… you did anything but.

i am not going to go through all of your arguments as some of them seem to be repeating…

where is it said luke and mark were apostles? they travelled with apostles (paul and peter) and wrote down what they saw and heard from them. they did ministry with apostles (although mark abandoned paul and barnabas… if he had been appointed by God as an apostle, why would he do this? remember, peter was not an apostle when he denied Jesus, after Jesus commissioned him, he seemed to lose all sense of fear of death).

the standard scripture gave was the one i stated. it was a standard because, at the time and well before it as well, most of the NT books were known and circulated to the churches. also, they knew the basis of the Christian faith was the apostles’ teachings and they protected the scriptures so vehemently, some to their own deaths (martyrs) and some through extreme torture (confessors), because they understood the writings of the apostles and those who were directly with them as being the written form of the teachings of the apostles. it is not as if they just discovered all of these books in 300 a.d. and decided they needed to convene a council to decide what to do with them. no, they needed to limit the number of books viewed as the teachings of the apostles and they used the standard given to them by the early church (as written by luke in the book of acts) that the only books inspired by the HS are those which came from an apostle.

it was the council and all the bishops which approved it… not just the pope. it’s not like all the bishops were sitting around waiting with baited breath wondering if the pope was going to approve it. no, they went with what the majority of bishops agreed upon.

when any group of Christians (as few as 2 or 3 according to Jesus) are together in His name, He is there with them (Matt. 18). when we truly seek, we find (also Matt). the bible can only be interpreted in the context of community. i believe that all of the splits have taken place because they forget to also include tradition, history, and scholarship as well. i also think that we are humans and none of us are infallible (not even the pope).

30,000… people need to stop throwing this erroneous number around. i have studied theology for the better part of 12 years and can only point to 6 or 7 really different theologies. many practices are different, but if we are counting those as denominations then there are 23 catholic denominations right? wrong. there might be 30,000 different Christian groups that are not formally aligned with another Christian group (some as small as the tiny independent baptist church down the street from me with 37 members), but they share the same theology as thousands of others. there are not 30,000 different theologies. there are many different styles and practices but not that many different core beliefs.

again, i would urge you to practice charity since that is the “greatest of these” and if you really believe you have the fullness of the truth, it should be what comes out of you instead of statements like:

I’d think a bit more before blindly making statements.

i do not make blind statements. the things i say come from years of study (of catholic, protestant, orthodox, neo-orthodox, heretical, etc.) and deep reflection. remember as well, that i was putting forth a proposition as i thought was clear in the way i worded my post. i simply put forth another point of view. just because it is not yours does not make it wrong.

lastly, prima scriptura is what the catholic church actually practices. jimmy akin is quoted as firmly believing in it (to use a name you might recognize). i have heard scott hahn talk about it as well.

 

[Harmony1988]

Firstly, I am calm. Just because I put words in CAPS, doesn’t mean I’m not calm. I bring attention to those specific words because I want it to mean something.

Now having addressed that, let me read the rest of your post. But until then, you perhaps should calm down. Not once have I cussed, but I’m in need of calming down?

 

[bengal_fan]

Firstly, I am calm. Just because I put words in CAPS, doesn’t mean I’m not calm. I bring attention to those specific words because I want it to mean something.

Now having addressed that, let me read the rest of your post. But until then, you perhaps should calm down. Not once have I cussed, but I’m in need of calming down?

i actually didn’t cuss. your comments were not charitable. maybe i misread your caps as anger, but the lack of charity led me to do so.

incidentally, see you play guitar. so do i. are you an electric or acoustic man?

 

[Harmony1988]

harmony, you need to calm the **** down.

i replied gently and with respect… you did anything but.

i am not going to go through all of your arguments as some of them seem to be repeating…

where is it said luke and mark were apostles? they travelled with apostles (paul and peter) and wrote down what they saw and heard from them. they did ministry with apostles (although mark abandoned paul and barnabas… if he had been appointed by God as an apostle, why would he do this? remember, peter was not an apostle when he denied Jesus, after Jesus commissioned him, he seemed to lose all sense of fear of death).

Sorry, don’t know why I said that, I keep thinking of them as part of the original 12. You are right there.

the standard scripture gave was the one i stated. it was a standard because, at the time and well before it as well, most of the NT books were known and circulated to the churches. also, they knew the basis of the Christian faith was the apostles’ teachings and they protected the scriptures so vehemently, some to their own deaths (martyrs) and some through extreme torture (confessors), because they understood the writings of the apostles and those who were directly with them as being the written form of the teachings of the apostles.

Yes, agreed, but they had to sort between many books, some kind of guidance was needed, and also an authority. If there was an authority amongst the bishops at that time, are you now implying there is no such authority? And how is that?

it is not as if they just discovered all of these books in 300 a.d. and decided they needed to convene a council to decide what to do with them. no, they needed to limit the number of books viewed as the teachings of the apostles and they used the standard given to them by the early church (as written by luke in the book of acts) that the only books inspired by the HS are those which came from an apostle.

And how does this prove me wrong in what I’ve said? Also, I do not disagree that the Holy Spirit inspired the books, so I don’t see where you are going with stating the obvious. But Jesus has given authority to some people has he not? And this authority was manifested in perhaps the first way by the agreement of the what was meant to be in the Bible. This kind of authority isn’t prevalent in Protestantism. It’s free for all. There were ‘bishops’ that did things, not the general public.

Did we see the ministry of ‘achaz’ or the ministry of ‘Leetus Maximus’ or the ministry of ‘ahuv’ having authority? No, we saw the bishop’s You get what I mean? These were not the general public going around making new doctrines, or approving formal religious things.

Continued…

 

[Harmony1988]

it was the council and all the bishops which approved it… not just the pope. it’s not like all the bishops were sitting around waiting with baited breath wondering if the pope was going to approve it. no, they went with what the majority of bishops agreed upon.

The pope is the bishop of rome. Whether or not they were sitting around for the bishop of rome to concur, you are still demonstrating there are a select few that had authority over the matter, just like the authority given to Jesus’ disciple.

when any group of Christians (as few as 2 or 3 according to Jesus) are together in His name, He is there with them (Matt. 18). when we truly seek, we find (also Matt). the bible can only be interpreted in the context of community. i believe that all of the splits have taken place because they forget to also include tradition, history, and scholarship as well. i also think that we are humans and none of us are infallible (not even the pope).

History tells us that there are many breakups in Christianity, whether it be in Catholicism, Protestantism, or something else. So now how do we interpret this verse, because the way you interpret it, it doesn’t seem to be in line with what has happened.

What do you mean by ‘they forget’ who is they? I’m asking this seriously.

30,000… people need to stop throwing this erroneous number around. i have studied theology for the better part of 12 years and can only point to 6 or 7 really different theologies. many practices are different, but if we are counting those as denominations then there are 23 catholic denominations right? wrong. there might be 30,000 different Christian groups that are not formally aligned with another Christian group (some as small as the tiny independent baptist church down the street from me with 37 members), but they share the same theology as thousands of others. there are not 30,000 different theologies. there are many different styles and practices but not that many different core beliefs.

Christ asked for unity, he instituted one church, not different churches. I know that many have the same core beliefs, that could be said of Christianity as a whole, but when it comes to morals and doctrines, there is no firm standpoint.

People when disagreeing, following Luther’s lead, not Christ in the protestant churches, they freely form their own church and theologies, when they haven’t ever been given the authority to do so.

godweb.org/denominations2.htm

Those are just the main ones in the USA, just the official ones. I didn’t even have to do much search to get this:

“Protestantism” is less a denomination than a general branch of Christianity encompassing numerous denominations and a wide theological spectrum ranging from conservative to liberal.

Protestantism originated in the 16th century Reformation, and most modern Protestant denominations can trace their heritage to one of the major movements that sprung up in the 16th century. Presbyterians are indebted to John Calvin and Reformed theology, as well as to John Knox and the Church of Scotland. Anglicans and Episcopalians trace their heritage to the Church of England that resulted from King Henry VIII’s break from the authority of Rome. Evangelicalism (and to a slightly lesser degree, Methodism) is indebted to Pietism, a 17th century Protestant movement emphasizing a holy life, individual study of the scriptures, and better training of ministers.

Protestant denominations differ in the degree to which they reject Catholic belief and practice. Some churches, such as Anglicans and Lutherans, tend to resemble Catholicism in their formal liturgy, while others, like Baptists and Presbyterians, retain very little of the liturgy and tradition associated with the Catholic
church.
religionfacts.com/christianity/denominations/protestantism.htm

So we have some agreeing with Catholic practices, others disagreeing, some blending, and who knows what else. This is certainly not the Church that Christ instituted. These websites only portray the mainstream denominations.

This doesn’t make any sense to me:

again, i would urge you to practice charity since that is the “greatest of these” and if you really believe you have the fullness of the truth, it should be what comes out of you instead of statements like:

i do not make blind statements. the things i say come from years of study (of catholic, protestant, orthodox, neo-orthodox, heretical, etc.) and deep reflection. remember as well, that i was putting forth a proposition as i thought was clear in the way i worded my post. i simply put forth another point of view. just because it is not yours does not make it wrong.

lastly, prima scriptura is what the catholic church actually practices. jimmy akin is quoted as firmly believing in it (to use a name you might recognize). i have heard scott hahn talk about it as well.

Wasn’t this about sola

 

[Harmony1988]

i actually didn’t cuss. your comments were not charitable. maybe i misread your caps as anger, but the lack of charity led me to do so.

incidentally, see you play guitar. so do i. are you an electric or acoustic man?

How did you know I played guitar? I’m mainly electric, used to play a lot of heavy metal, but I’m moving into acoustic stuff more and more, just the gentle tunes, the love songs and stuff you know. Easier on the mind

 

[bengal_fan]

Sorry, don’t know why I said that, I keep thinking of them as part of the original 12. You are right there.

no problem.

Yes, agreed, but they had to sort between many books, some kind of guidance was needed, and also an authority. If there was an authority amongst the bishops at that time, are you now implying there is no such authority? And how is that?

but the guidance seemed to be reason and an historic link between the book or letter in question and the apostles. this being the traditional standard of orthodoxy as found in Acts 2.

And how does this prove me wrong in what I’ve said? Also, I do not disagree that the Holy Spirit inspired the books, so I don’t see where you are going with stating the obvious. But Jesus has given authority to some people has he not? And this authority was manifested in perhaps the first way by the agreement of the what was meant to be in the Bible. This kind of authority isn’t prevalent in Protestantism. It’s free for all. There were ‘bishops’ that did things, not the general public.

the authority is present in protestantism. it is just not limited to the leaders. actually, in the earliest church, we have evidence that the congregation actually chose the priest and bishop. it was later changed but originally, the decision on who would make the decisions was left to the (well not general public but…) the members of the church.

Did we see the ministry of ‘achaz’ or the ministry of ‘Leetus Maximus’ or the ministry of ‘ahuv’ having authority? No, we saw the bishop’s You get what I mean? These were not the general public going around making new doctrines, or approving formal religious things.
.

agreed, these men’s teachings were not in line with apostolic teaching as passed down through the writings of the apostles AND the church (teaching from the writings of the apostles).

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

21 Reasons to reject the man-made, unbiblical, false, heretical doctrine of sola scriptura:

geocities.com/militantis/solascriptura.html

 

[bengal_fan]

The pope is the bishop of rome. Whether or not they were sitting around for the bishop of rome to concur, you are still demonstrating there are a select few that had authority over the matter, just like the authority given to Jesus’ disciple.

no, i was demonstrating that it was those charged with representing individual groups of churches coming together on equal footing and reaching an agreement that constitutes authority. much like a representative government.

History tells us that there are many breakups in Christianity, whether it be in Catholicism, Protestantism, or something else. So now how do we interpret this verse, because the way you interpret it, it doesn’t seem to be in line with what has happened.

i don’t see how it’s not in line. i just think you are getting caught up in your own interpretation of what has happened. i see the infighting and bickering and downright persecution of each other as Christians as horrible. but i think the fact that we have so many expressions of the faith and the fact that because of denominations, we now have the freedom to ask questions and seek answers to things that at one time would have gotten you excommunicated at best and killed at worst as a good thing.

What do you mean by ‘they forget’ who is they? I’m asking this seriously.

i mean those that completely separate themselves from other Christians, history, tradition, etc. they have lost touch.

Christ asked for unity, he instituted one church, not different churches. I know that many have the same core beliefs, that could be said of Christianity as a whole, but when it comes to morals and doctrines, there is no firm standpoint.

Christ did pray for unity. so why can’t we be unified when we agree on the necessities? we all as Christians believe in one God in three persons. we believe in the incarnation, the crucifixion, and the resurrection of Jesus. we believe in salvation because of Jesus. we believe in the Holy Spirit. we believe in a universal connection between all Christians that we call “the church” (not the building or a particular denomination, but the mystical body of Christ to which all believers belong). the problem comes when denominations add “essentials” that are really non-essential. i love augustine when he say, “in essentials, unity. in non-essentials, charity” (paraphrase mine).

People when disagreeing, following Luther’s lead, not Christ in the protestant churches, they freely form their own church and theologies, when they haven’t ever been given the authority to do so.

i do not follow luther’s lead. i disagree with luther on so many issues it is ridiculous. most of protestantism does not trace its beliefs back to luther. most go back to calvin and zwingli. calvin based most of his teachings in anselm and augustine as well as scripture. who says they haven’t been given the authority to do so? when philip interacted with the ethiopian eunuch and the eunuch became a Christian and was baptized, philip disappeared leaving the eunuch to continue his journey back to ethiopia alone. there is a Christian church in ethiopia today that traces its roots to this eunuch. he was never made an apostle nor ordained. he was simply baptized. i view this as a model for beginning a church. as long as faith, baptism, and humility are at the core (as they were with the eunuch) we have full permission to form a community of believers.

godweb.org/denominations2.htm

Those are just the main ones in the USA, just the official ones. I didn’t even have to do much search to get this:

this is a list, but it does nothing to contradict my point. if you look at what each of these denominations hold as their core beliefs… they will be virtually identical. the disagreements come in the form of organization, style, and practices… not so much in doctrine and definitely not in absolute core doctrines.

So we have some agreeing with Catholic practices, others disagreeing, some blending, and who knows what else. This is certainly not the Church that Christ instituted. These websites only portray the mainstream denominations.

if we focused on our commonalities as opposed to our differences, it would be the church Jesus instituted.

Wasn’t this about sola

yes, but you made a comment about my comment about prima scriptura.

 

[bengal_fan]

21 Reasons to reject the man-made, unbiblical, false, heretical doctrine of sola scriptura:

geocities.com/militantis/solascriptura.html

to quote the movie Good Will Hunting…

“so, do you have any thoughts of your own on this? or are you going to plagiarize the whole thing for us?”

not to be a jerk, but how about entering the discussion instead of pasting links to other people’s ideas?

even if you just paraphrased the reasons.

i agree that sola scriptura is not biblical and does not work. i also believe that nowhere is it truly practiced and we all (catholics included) practice prima scriptura.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

to quote the movie Good Will Hunting…

“so, do you have any thoughts of your own on this? or are you going to plagiarize the whole thing for us?”

not to be a jerk, but how about entering the discussion instead of pasting links to other people’s ideas?

even if you just paraphrased the reasons.

i agree that sola scriptura is not biblical and does not work. i also believe that nowhere is it truly practiced and we all (catholics included) practice prima scriptura.

yeah, I actually have two essays on this subject.
members.cox.net/humurabi/Catholic_Apologia.pdf
members.cox.net/humurabi/AreYouSaved.pdf

but if anyone is going to do any serious reading, I suggest reading the original link to Joel Peters book.