In what sense (if any) did the NT writers practice sola scriptura in writing the NT?

[adriancombe]

This is a spinoff from the thread ‘Another nail in the sola scriptura coffin,’ where my Protestant interlocutor rhetorically asked the question whether the NT authors ever quoted a non-biblical source on questions of faith and morals. Presumably, he was using the faith/morals descriptor in response to something re papal infallibility. At any rate, he was clearly assuming the answer to his rhetorical question was ‘No’.

I suppose I should not be surprised, but apparently there are some sola scriptura proponents who not only believe this, but actually tell others to use it in debates against Catholics. Here is a section of my reply to him:

John 7:38

He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

(There is no Scripture passage stating this).

1 Corinthians 9:10

Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

(There is no Scripture passage stating this. *It is in the context of the morality of Paul and Barnabas, as Apostles, refraining from working for a living.)

The original interlocutor decided to ignore this info which did not conform to his expectations. He never responded to this. (No, I did not have a heart attack and die from the shock of that surprise :yawn: ). So I decided to see if anyone else was interested.

This is info derived from the loci citati vel allegati of the Nestle Aland Greek English New Testament. For those of you who are familiar with the names Nestle and Aland, you already know their scholarship is considered nearly bulletproof. But they are not infallible . So if anyone knows of contradictory info please share. Finally: do these and similar passages have any bearing on whether the NT writers adhered to sola scriptura in writing the NT? Why or why not, and for which definition(s) of sola scriptura?

Also there are other passages like this, as well as many referring to the deuterocanonicals, apocrypha that are in nobody’s canon, and secular Greek works of the ancient world.

 

[JacobG]

In deciding the ultimate factor in matters of doctrines, Jesus, the prophets, the apostles, and the N.T. Church appealed to the Scriptures as the “final court of appeal.” The ultimate authority in matters of faith.

Throughout the Bible, the prophets, Jesus, the apostles and the N.T. Church used key phrases which indicated an appeal to authority (Isa. 8:20; Matt. 22:23-46; I Cor. 15:3-4; Acts 15:12-18). What did they say?

“as it is written” used 46 times:

“Scripture says” used 7 times:

“according to the Scriptures” used 3 times: ex. 1 Cor. 15:3-4.

“the law and the prophets” used 38 times: ex. Luke 24:44-45

Did Jesus, the apostles or the N.T. Church ever appeal to “tradition” as the authority for their doctrines?

No. Not once did the prophets, Jesus, the apostles or N.T. Church appeal to tradition as the authority of their doctrines.

As a matter of fact, the idea of people appealing to “tradition” instead of Scripture is condemned by the prophets (Isa. 29:13), Jesus (Matt. 15:1-9) and the apostles (Col. 2:8).

The ONLY Biblical author to use the word “tradition” in a positive way is the Apostle Paul who clearly used it to refer to the handing down of scriptural doctrines such as the Gospel. Since the Church had just begun, it would be logically impossible for him to be referring to “historical traditions” when the history of the Church had only just begun! How could it have any “historical traditions” when it did not have any history yet?

 

[CWBetts]

I problem with this question is that the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Jews of the diaspora all had different ideas of wht the Scriptures were, so the question is essentially unanswerable

 

[JacobG]

I problem with this question is that the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Jews of the diaspora all had different ideas of wht the Scriptures were, so the question is essentially unanswerable

Please explain why it matters what the pharisees and Sadducees believed.

 

[CWBetts]

Please explain why it matters what the pharisees and Sadducees believed.

It matters because there was no set Canon of Scripture. The Jews of the diaspora used the Greek translation (the Septuagint). The Pharisees used what is roughly the same as the Protestant Old Testament, and the Sadducees only accepted the Torah (Pentateuch). How can one have a discussion of the topic if there was no consensus on what the Scriptures actually included?

 

[fdesales]

In what sense (if any) did the NT writers practice sola scriptura in writing the NT?

---

In no sense.

If they did, the council mentioned in Acts 15 never would have gotten off the ground.

End of thread…

 

[CWBetts]

adriancombe;5962040:

In what sense (if any) did the NT writers practice sola scriptura in writing the NT?

---

In no sense.

If they did, the council mentioned in Acts 15 never would have gotten off the ground.

End of thread…

And even more, St. Paul pretty much threw the idea of guilt and sin offerings in the dumpster

 

[adriancombe]

In deciding the ultimate factor in matters of doctrines, Jesus, the prophets, the apostles, and the N.T. Church appealed to the Scriptures as the “final court of appeal.” The ultimate authority in matters of faith.

Throughout the Bible, the prophets, Jesus, the apostles and the N.T. Church used key phrases which indicated an appeal to authority (Isa. 8:20; Matt. 22:23-46; I Cor. 15:3-4; Acts 15:12-18). What did they say?

“as it is written” used 46 times:

“Scripture says” used 7 times:

“according to the Scriptures” used 3 times: ex. 1 Cor. 15:3-4.

“the law and the prophets” used 38 times: ex. Luke 24:44-45

Thanks JacobG for your prompt response - I really mean that. However, I think you may have missed the intent. Possibly you did not read the OP carefully? Please pay particular attention to the gray box where I quote from another post I made. It is already established in my OP that such phrases are used. The problem is they are referring to something that is not Scripture.

Did Jesus, the apostles or the N.T. Church ever appeal to “tradition” as the authority for their doctrines?

No. Not once did the prophets, Jesus, the apostles or N.T. Church appeal to tradition as the authority of their doctrines.

Well, first off, that is a pretty big statement, and it is only partly on topic.

To the on topic part: did the NT writers appeal to something outside OT Scriptures as an authority? It is clear that they did (see OP). Whether this constitutes an appeal to tradition depends on your definition of tradition - but even that is not *strictly speaking *the topic. You might call it tradition, written tradition, or something else; but unless you can provide a chapter and verse, it is not Scripture. Is this last statement reasonable to you?

To the off topic part, but only as an aside: Yes, Jesus did (at least) once refer a non-biblical tradition as an authority for required moral action, in Matthew 23:1-3

Matthew 23:1 KJV - “Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,”

Matthew 23:2 KJV - “Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:”

Matthew 23:3 KJV - “All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, [that] observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.”

However, this is not strictly speaking our topic; Jesus was not a NT writer.:nope: And in quoting Him, we do not have (imho) a bona fide instance of Matthew conflicting with Sola Scriptura.

As a matter of fact, the idea of people appealing to “tradition” instead of Scripture is condemned by the prophets (Isa. 29:13), Jesus (Matt. 15:1-9) and the apostles (Col. 2:8).

The ONLY Biblical author to use the word “tradition” in a positive way is the Apostle Paul who clearly used it to refer to the handing down of scriptural doctrines such as the Gospel. Since the Church had just begun, it would be logically impossible for him to be referring to “historical traditions” when the history of the Church had only just begun! How could it have any “historical traditions” when it did not have any history yet?

For reasons already stated, these remarks are off topic. Further, there are more than adequate threads on CAF, should you desire to discuss them. Perhaps I will see you there.

 

[po18guy]

In deciding the ultimate factor in matters of doctrines, Jesus, the prophets, the apostles, and the N.T. Church appealed to the Scriptures as the “final court of appeal.” The ultimate authority in matters of faith.

Paul claimed that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth in his letter to Timothy (1 Timothy 3:15). I have no good argument against that.

As far as sola scriptura being anything except a man-made tradition, consider that scripture tell us, inerrantly, that it is incomplete. I refer you to Luke 3:18, John 20:30 and 21:25, Acts 2:40 and 1 Corinthians 11:34. I believe scripture. I trust that scripture is true when it tells me that it is incomplete.

Consider also that the Gospel according to Luke, and the Acts of the Apostles are products of the oral tradition. Luke witnessed none of the incidents in his Gospel, and likely none (or very little) of Acts. So, he interviewed those who did and wrote down, for the first time, what they told him using the oral tradition.

 

[adriancombe]

I problem with this question is that the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Jews of the diaspora all had different ideas of wht the Scriptures were, so the question is essentially unanswerable

This is a very important fact, which many of our Protestant interlocutors choose to ignore, for obvious reasons. But, to stay on topic, for argument’s sake, we shall consider the Canon of OT Scripture to be the Catholic one…or the Protestant one…or the Ethopian one…or any that can be documented anywhere (url please)…for the Protestant interlocutors, whichever the respective adherent of SS considers to best strengthen their position :juggle:. We Catholics will hold ourselves strictly to the Catholic OT Canon.:bible1:

This is clearly a high risk debate for the sola scriptura adherents so I want to give them every advantage possible so none can claim I stacked it against them. :crying:

Also the adherents of sola scriptura can use any definition of the doctrine they want as long as the have a url to link to that documents it.

 

[adriancombe]

The list of ‘loci citati vel allegati’ from the Greek English New Testament of Nestle Aland can be found - **complete with citations **- here!