Protestants: Did Sola Scriptura exist at the time of the Apostles?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Semper_Fi_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I can only say that you don’t know much about Luther’s reformation…
Clearly Sola Scriptura was an invention of the early 1500s, and did not exist during Apostolic Times. While I’m not a Lutheran, I do know a little about history, and know before too long, Luther’s successors thought him too Catholic and moved even further away from the Church than he had intended. Don’t you just love a guy that writes the following:

*"Returning to the issue at hand, if your Papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word “alone” (sola), say this to him: “Dr.Martin Luther will have it so and he says that a papist and an *** are the same thing.” Sic volo, sic iubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas. (I will it, I command it; my will is reason enough) For we are not going to become students and followers of the papists. Rather we will become their judge and master. We, too, are going to be proud and brag with these blockheads; and just as St. Paul brags against his madly raving saints, I will brag over these asses of mine!..I will go even further with my bragging: I can exegete the psalms and the prophets, and they cannot. I can translate, and they cannot. I can read Holy Scriptures, and they cannot. I can pray, they cannot. Coming down to their level, I can do their dialectics and philosophy better than all of them put together. Plus I know that not one of them understands Aristotle. If, in fact, any one of them can correctly understand one part or chapter of Aristotle, I will eat my hat! No, I am not overdoing it for I have been educated in and have practiced their science since my childhood. I recognize how broad and deep it is. They, too, know that everything they can do, I can do. Yet they handle me like a stranger in their discipline, these incurable fellows, as if I had just arrived this morning and had never seen or heard what they know and teach. How they do so brilliantly parade around with their science, teaching me what I grew beyond twenty years ago! To all their shouting and screaming I join the harlot in singing: “I have known for seven years that horseshoe nails are iron.”

So this can be the answer to your first question. Please do not give these asses any other answer to their useless braying about that word “sola” than simply “Luther will have it so, and he says that he is a doctor above all the papal doctors.” Let it remain at that. I will, from now on, hold them in contempt, and have already held them in contempt, as long as they are the kind of people that they are - asses, I should say. And there are brazen idiots among them who have never learned their own art of sophistry - like Dr. Schmidt and Snot-Nose, and such like them.

They set themselves against me in this matter, which not only transcends sophistry, but as St. Paul writes, all the wisdom and understanding in the world as well. An *** truly does not have to sing much as he is already known for his ears…

I also know that in Rom. 3, the word “solum” is not present in either Greek or Latin text - the papists did not have to teach me that - it is fact! The letters s-o-l-a are not there."*
(This text was translated for Project Wittenberg by Dr. Gary Mann in 1995 and was placed by him in the public domain. You may freely distribute, copy or print this text, providing the information in this statement remains attached. Please direct any comments or suggestions to: Rev. Robert E. Smith of the Walther Library at Concordia Theological Seminary.)

And for a guy who many of his successors said was too Catholic, read on: "Luther was well known for his hot temper, pride and violent language, rather than for his saintliness and humility. He called the Pope the ‘Antichrist’ and even heaped abuse on fellow-reformers like Zwingli and Bucer who disagreed with him. He encouraged the German Princes to seize church property in return for protection for the Reformation. Along with others, he issued a licence permitting the Landgrave of Hesse to keep 2 wives simultaneously. However worse was to come. His language grew in violence: ‘If we punish thieves with the gallows . . . why do we not still more attack with every kind of weapon . . . these Cardinals, these Popes, and that whole abomination of the Romish Sodom . . . why do we not wash our hands in their blood?’ "

So you are right, I’m not well versed in Luther’s theology, especially his developing the SOLAs, and don’t see the need to be any more so at this point either. I’ll continue to follow Jesus, who came to save, heal, free, and forgive, and who asks us to do so as well.

God Bless
 
Hey Mike, what you posted regarding Luther brought this to mind…

Matthew 7:18
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit.
 
And for a guy who many of his successors said was too Catholic, read on:
[sign]Who wrote that, if you please…and what is behind those ellipses…?[/sign]

What is a “Luther’s successor”? Who thought he was “too Catholic”?

You are right in that Luther didn’t always write nice things. Oh no! :eek: If all else fails, dismiss him for being impolite.

Not that any of that has anything to do with Sola Scriptura, but.
 
[sign]Who wrote that, if you please…and what is behind those ellipses…?[/sign]

What is a “Luther’s successor”? Who thought he was “too Catholic”?

You are right in that Luther didn’t always write nice things. Oh no! :eek: If all else fails, dismiss him for being impolite.

Not that any of that has anything to do with Sola Scriptura, but.
Your questions are getting really off thread! Luther’s successors were the Calvinists and the Anabaptists. You can read his thoughts on the peasant riots in Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants (1525) A tract written by Martin Luther (German title: Wider die räuberischen und mörderischen Rotten der Bauern) in May, 1525, and his late in life thoughts on Jews in On the Jews and Their Lies, written in 1543 three years before his death, Luther recommends that Jews be deprived of money, civil rights, religious teaching, and education, and that they be forced to labor on the land, or else be expelled from Germany and possibly killed.

Now let’s go back to the OP question did Sola Scriptura, exist at the time of the Apostles?

Peace
 
🙂 Dear Semper Fi

Thank you for starting such an interesting thread. I have read it through with great interest, yet am puzzled by the whole business – what are you actually trying to achieve?

You know as well as all of us that even if somebody `proved’ what you asked them to prove, you would still not accept it, ``because nobody is as blind as he who does not want to see’’. The same goes for the Protestants you are challenging! Challenges don’t help any of us to find truth, righteousness, eternal life etc. They just divide people.

It seems like we haven’t grown up yet – my dad is stronger than yours etc. Did Jesus belong to a church, did He condemn other churches? He condemned/wept for everybody who was walking in darkness, when there was plenty of light all around!

If Jesus were walking on this earth today, would he be a Catholic or a Protestant or an Adventist or an Evangelical or a Pentecostal? I suspect He would be NONE of the above. His only concern is about truth and walking in the light that shines from heaven via the Holy Spirit. So all the bickering about Luther etc. is a waste of time. The point that Jesus came to make, was not to follow any tradition of any man or religion, but only that which had been PROVEN to be inspired by the Holy Spirit and did not contradict any previous inspired scripture.

When Jesus was tempted by Satan, He did NOT quote Abraham, or Gamalial, but only scripture: Mat 4:4 Jesus answered, ``It is written… v 7 It is also written… v10 Away from me, Satan! For it is written!" The only available writings that had stood the test of time/inspiration, were the OT writings then.

We all believe that the New Testament was merely a sample of many other writings inspired by the Holy Spirit (same applies for the OT as well), but we also have to agree that the early church fathers were inspired by the Holy Spirit to decide on a Canon of what was considered inspired by the Holy Spirit. Anything more than that, we have to conclude, is tradition (yours, ours, whose?) and mere speculation, which is NOT the foundation you build a spiritual house on!

Jesus’ verdict on the traditions of the chosen people of God reads like this in Mat 15:9 ``They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.’’

Conclusion: We argue about these things, because we are all trying to USE Holy Scripture to prop up our own traditions. Lets get on to a more solid foundation for such a serious matter as eternal life – the Word of God (Old Testament and New Testament) seems a much better option to me.

God bless,

Friedrich
 
I can only say that you don’t know much about Luther’s reformation. Luther’s reformation did not toss tradition. Luther’s reformation did, however, judge tradition by the rule and norm of the clearest form of Apostolic teaching known, the Old and New Testaments–because, like you said, one source must always agree with the other. When they do conflict, you gotta go with the most reliable source.
“From henceforth All generations shall call me Blessed” - The Blessed Virgin Mary

“Hail, full of grace(or Favoured one), the lord is with thee” - Luke 1:28… note specifically the “Hail”, indicating the higher status of the one being spoken too, and the high likelyhood of the speaker being on their knees, This is a salute of a superior being. Even if you put “Favoured one” in there, this is still a salutation of a superior being and very millitary like at that… It is not “Greetings” it is “Hail”, specifically. Some translations have “blessed art thou amongst women” at the end of this…

“Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb” - Elizabeth… This is a difficult verse for protestants to deal with, It sounds rather like Elizabeth is exalting and praising the young Mary, doesn’t it? Reminiscent of the “from henceforth…” isn’t it?

Revelations Chapter 12… The Straight Interpretation: A crowned woman, who is the new ark of the covernant, is Currently in heaven, who’s son is Jesus Christ the Lord and who’s enemy is a dragon. Now who was Jesus Christ’s mother?

Lady’s and gentlemen… The Bible on the role of the Virgin Mary.
 
SS didn’t exist back then. They both had oral and written Word.
 
Last point: Calvinists and Anabaptists are innovators, not “successors to Luther”.
Now let’s go back to the OP question did Sola Scriptura, exist at the time of the Apostles?
Yes, in that Sola Scriputra is a practical application of judging doctrine by the rule and norm of Apostolic teaching. We use Scripture alone because Scripture alone is the only source available to us regarding genuine Apostolic teaching.

In Apostolic times, doctrine was also judged by Apostolic teaching, but there were other reliable sources available then.
 
Last point: Calvinists and Anabaptists are innovators, not “successors to Luther”.Yes, in that Sola Scriputra is a practical application of judging doctrine by the rule and norm of Apostolic teaching. We use Scripture alone because Scripture alone is the only source available to us regarding genuine Apostolic teaching.

In Apostolic times, doctrine was also judged by Apostolic teaching, but there were other reliable sources available then.
You are merely playing with words by calling the further “protestors” innovators, not successors. They came after Luther, they went further than he did, they “succeeded” him in going further from 1,500 years of Church teaching, and Calvin was even more emphatic about the SOLAS than Luther was!

We both agree, you are only left with Scripture as the only source available to you, because your ancestors in the faith took that alone from the Church and left 1,500 years of teaching including Sacred Tradition and left it behind. Isn’t that what you refered to above as “other sources available then”? If not, what other reliable sources are you writing about, that are no longer available?

Peace
 
🙂 Hi Colliric,

You said: Revelations Chapter 12… The Straight Interpretation: A crowned woman, who is the new ark of the covernant, is Currently in heaven, who’s son is Jesus Christ the Lord and who’s enemy is a dragon. Now who was Jesus Christ’s mother?

Did you read the whole chapter 12 of Revelation to find the correct context for your conclusions? If you insist that it refers to Mary only, then do yourself a favour and read verse 6: The woman fled into the desert to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1260 days... same for v14: The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the desert, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time (same as 1260 days of v 6), out of the serpent’s reach. Then from his mouth the serpent spewed water like a river, to overtake the woman and sweep her away with the torrent. But th earth helped the woman by opening its mouth and swallowing the river that the dragon had spewed out of his mouth…’’

Does this sound like LITERAL or SYMBOLIC language? If you take it literally, then Mary is dressed with the sun, stands on the moon and wears a crown with twelve stars; an enormous red dragon with 7 heads and 10 horns tries to devour her child, she has 2 wings, she hides in the desert for three and a half years, a snake spits out a river from its mouth to sweep her away, and the earth helped' her by swallowing the river up... None of this fits literally with anything that happened to Mary 2000 years ago. I suspect you would be better off to say: the woman of Revelation 12 refers to a pure bride (the apostolic church of Christ), that suffered persecution for sticking to God's commandments after Christ ascended to heaven ... Then the dragon/satan was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring – those who obey God’s commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.’’ v17

God bless, Friedrich
 
We both agree, you are only left with Scripture as the only source available to you, because your ancestors in the faith took that alone from the Church and left 1,500 years of teaching including Sacred Tradition and left it behind.
Point 1) Early Christians didn’t have 1,500 years of teaching either, so I don’t know how that applies to the question of Sola Scriptura existing at the time of Apostles.
  1. Lutherans did not leave 1,500 years of tradition behind. They did, however, judge that tradition against apostolic teaching the best they knew it, which is the Scriptures. Some mediæval innovations did get left behind.
 
:)If Jesus were walking on this earth today, would he be a Catholic or a Protestant or an Adventist or an Evangelical or a Pentecostal? I suspect He would be NONE of the above. His only concern is about truth and walking in the light that shines from heaven via the Holy Spirit. So all the bickering about Luther etc. is a waste of time. The point that Jesus came to make, was not to follow any tradition of any man or religion, but only that which had been PROVEN to be inspired by the Holy Spirit and did not contradict any previous inspired scripture.
Friderich, the New Testament clearly tells us Jesus established His Church on this earth, provided the Holy Spirit to guide it to all truth, promised to protect “it”, (He didn’t say them), from the evil one, and to return one day. He also prayed to the Father that the Church be one as He and the Father are one.

I know you know it, but Jesus does not have to walk the earth to see what has happened in Christian history, and surely He and the Father are saddened by the many scars we have put onto His body, the Church over the years. As you know there are tens of thousands of “churches”, all proclaiming the same Bible, but who wander all over the spiritual countryside like lost sheep, searching for the “Truth”, which is not a thing, but a person, Jesus Himself.

You are right, many of us who claim to follow Him bend, twist, and stretch Sacred Scripture to suit our beliefs. Many still do that to this day since there are new “bible churches” being formed as I write this to you somewhere in the world using a “cut and paste theology”. You are also right when you wrote, “The point that Jesus came to make, was not to follow any tradition of any man or religion, but only that which had been PROVEN to be inspired by the Holy Spirit and did not contradict any previous inspired scripture”. But what is the PROOF; does it have to be written to be PROVEN to you?
:)We all believe that the New Testament was merely a sample of many other writings inspired by the Holy Spirit (same applies for the OT as well), but we also have to agree that the early church fathers were inspired by the Holy Spirit to decide on a Canon of what was considered inspired by the Holy Spirit. Anything more than that, we have to conclude, is tradition (yours, ours, whose?) and mere speculation, which is NOT the foundation you build a spiritual house on!
First of all go slow when saying “We all believe that the New Testament was merely a sample of many other writings inspired by the Holy Spirit”, we don’t believe the NT was a sample of anything. How can you say that the Holy Spirit inspired many other writings, but say the same Holy Spirit then inspired the ECFs to leave those God inspired/breathed writings out of the final Canon of Scripture? That impossible! Secondly, Sacred Tradition does not consist of those non-canonical books not chosen for the Canon of Sacred Scripture, but it is the oral teachings of Jesus, which He passed on to the Apostles, written about for the most part by some of them, and was passed on to from them to their successors, as Paul said whether written or orally.
:)Jesus’ verdict on the traditions of the chosen people of God reads like this in Mat 15:9 ``They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.’’

Conclusion: We argue about these things, because we are all trying to USE Holy Scripture to prop up our own traditions. Lets get on to a more solid foundation for such a serious matter as eternal life – the Word of God (Old Testament and New Testament) seems a much better option to me.

God bless,

Friedrich
BTW, the "chosen people of God " He spoke of in that verse were the Israelites.

And finally, you never answered the question, were the Apostles Sola Scripturists?

God Bless
 
🙂 Hi Colliric,

You said: Revelations Chapter 12… The Straight Interpretation: A crowned woman, who is the new ark of the covernant, is Currently in heaven, who’s son is Jesus Christ the Lord and who’s enemy is a dragon. Now who was Jesus Christ’s mother?

Did you read the whole chapter 12 of Revelation to find the correct context for your conclusions? If you insist that it refers to Mary only, then do yourself a favour and read verse 6: The woman fled into the desert to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1260 days... same for v14: The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the desert, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time (same as 1260 days of v 6), out of the serpent’s reach. Then from his mouth the serpent spewed water like a river, to overtake the woman and sweep her away with the torrent. But th earth helped the woman by opening its mouth and swallowing the river that the dragon had spewed out of his mouth…’’

Does this sound like LITERAL or SYMBOLIC language? If you take it literally, then Mary is dressed with the sun, stands on the moon and wears a crown with twelve stars; an enormous red dragon with 7 heads and 10 horns tries to devour her child, she has 2 wings, she hides in the desert for three and a half years, a snake spits out a river from its mouth to sweep her away, and the earth helped' her by swallowing the river up... None of this fits literally with anything that happened to Mary 2000 years ago. I suspect you would be better off to say: the woman of Revelation 12 refers to a pure bride (the apostolic church of Christ), that suffered persecution for sticking to God's commandments after Christ ascended to heaven ... Then the dragon/satan was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring – those who obey God’s commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.’’ v17

God bless, Friedrich
While the followup story is metaphorical, the description of a Woman being currently in heaven and being a queen and being the mother of the risen lord refers rather clearly to Mary first and foremost…

The followup story is rather clearly a metaphorical retelling of the flight of Mary from Jerusalem with the Apostle John in tow(remember how Jesus told John “Son this is your mother”, this was because Christ clearly knew that John would be the only apostle who would survive safely to the end of the century).

It in fact is actually therefore ALSO a metaphor for the early church… but that is secondary to the fact it is about the new ark of the covernant… which in fact is in the straightforward sense Mary, and the passage even says so… the passage outwardly calls the woman “The mother of God” several times over.
 
“Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb” - Elizabeth… This is a difficult verse for protestants to deal with, It sounds rather like Elizabeth is exalting and praising the young Mary, doesn’t it? Reminiscent of the “from henceforth…” isn’t it?

You left out something, “…Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. Then she spoke out with a loud voice and said 'Blessed…” My former coreligionists might keep Luke 12:10 in mind.😃

Don’t buy the Revelation reference, though. The interpretation would set Revelation 12.2 at odds with your immaculate conception (Genesis 3.16), and our (Orthodox) understanding of Isaiah 66.7 as the New Eve undoing the Fall.
 
Of course Sola Scriptura did not exist in the time of the Apostles: at the time there was no Scriptura!
For a Sola Scriptura arguement, try to find St. Paul’s quotation from Jesus (Acts 20.35) in the Gospels.
 
Last point: Calvinists and Anabaptists are innovators, not “successors to Luther”.Yes, in that Sola Scriputra is a practical application of judging doctrine by the rule and norm of Apostolic teaching. We use Scripture alone because Scripture alone is the only source available to us regarding genuine Apostolic teaching.

In Apostolic times, doctrine was also judged by Apostolic teaching, but there were other reliable sources available then.
Did Sola Scriptura exist at the time of the Apostles?

Let’s see. What about Matthew 2:23, where it says, “And coming he dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was said by prophets: That he shall be called a Nazarene.”

Which of the OT prophets said this? If Matthew got his facts wrong, does this mean the Gospel of Matthew wasn’t Divinely inspired? If Matthew made it up (ie. lied), does this mean the whole Gospel is a lie?

If Matthew *wasn’t lying and he prophesy can’t be found in the OT, then it follows that not all *of divine revelation is in the Bible.
 
There would not be *sola scriptura * in the Bible because there could not be: the phrase is Latin. The Bible is in Hebrew and Greek.

Please remember that for it to work at all, it would have to work on these texts, not translations of them.

Nor does the Bible in anyway support sola scriptura. Its writers, like its compilers, were far too intelligent to invent such a non-approach to and abuse of Sacred Writ.

Think about it: 1500 years would have to pass before this would be discovered.

But that’s what’s doubtful about protestantism in the first place, *inter multa *alia.

And sola scriptura works for no major author in Western literature, from Homer to Wordsworth. Because it cannot, on any text.
 
“sola scriptura”, is nothing more than a “man-made tradition”, created and fostered by the very people who endeavor to bash Catholics for “their man-made traditions”… more folderoll and hoo-ha to attempt to legitimize that which is not legitimate.

If non-Catholics were to actually spend 1/2 half of the time they spend trying to denigrate the Catholic Church, instead putting it into actually studying and learning God’s words…they would be a lot happier, and a lot closer to “salvation”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top