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

[manualman]

Protestants certainly have a sticky wicket to deal with on the subject. They claim Sola Scriptura, but they can neither demonstrate it from scripture, nor explain WHY the books they believe to be scripture are, in fact, scripture.

In reality, the reliability of the bible (in terms of the which books were selected for inclusion and the assurance that no corruption crept in) is suspect unless there is infallibility of the teaching authority of the CHURCH.

Most protestants take for granted that the bible is what it is, but strangely take for granted that it is perfect, reliable and authoritative without asking WHY? Those I have known who have inquired were satisfied with shakey circular reasoning adequate only for someone looking for reasons to support what they already believe.

Catholics, on the other hand start with the historical reality of Jesus, establish who he IS from his resurrection, note that he instructed his apostles to go forth and spread the word (and that he made certain promises to them about protection for the integrity of teaching), establish the apostolic source of scriptural writings and rely upon the continuing apostolic authority of the apostles successors to discern authentic and inspired writings versus non-inspired writings. Catholics trust Scripture because it is merely ancient preserved Sacred Tradition.

Protestants trust it because, well, because they were founded upon it and have nothing else to turn to. The idea didn’t organically develop, it is a doctrine of necessity. If you reject apostolic succession, Scripture is the only solid link you have left with Christ. If that means you need to close your eyes to the reliance of Scripture on Tradition, then ‘you gotta do what you gotta do.’

 

[Blue_Serenity]

Blue Serenity, you obviously don’t understand the difference between dogma (which is unchangeable) and disciplines (which can be changed). This is a point that confuses many Protestants, but it’s vital to understanding Church teaching…

I do understand probably more than what I should. But let me ask you this: the CC that exists today wasn’t created with all it’s doctrines and dogmas all at once, was it? Those teachings were developed over the years to the changing times. Ex.: mass is not said in Latin anymore very often, especially in the United States.
Jesus didn’t hand Peter a list of teachings when he told him to go out and preach, did he? No, it was something that happened over time.
That’s all I was getting at.

 

[Aramis]

Blue Serenity:

Christ taught the Apostles and Disciples quite a bit. Not all of it is recorded in the canonical gospels. It is amazing to read the infancy gospels and see how much of “Tradition” based teachings is in them. For no man spending more than a year teaching can be recorded in full detail in the 5 books which contain canonical teachings of Christ. They are just too short.

Logic says that some of the teachings of Jesus were not recorded, then, in those books.

Christ sends the 12 Apostles, and even some of the disciples, to go an teach. We may not know exactly what they taught, but we know that their teachings flourished, and many were handed down by “tradition.”

We have also the letters of Peter… which cover some of them.

Remember, too… Athanasius made a list in THREE parts, not two: The Scriptural, the useful, and the forbidden. Some of the books which do not survive in the canon were considered useful for teaching, but not for use in worship. These are also seldom used by the Sola Scriptura crowd.

On Scripture
Scripture being fixed “in mind” is iffy. Scripture is inherently “writing.” Icons, while said to be written, are not “scripture.” the root word, script, is the implication of written works.

So Scripture may have been codified from Oral sources, but it was not Scripture until it was promulgated in the written form. But also, the canonical scripture set is best understood as having been written to be read aloud, and then discussed.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

True, and no Christian should have “biblical” objections to the Assumption of Mary anyway, since God can clearly do that: Elijah (2 Kings 2), Enoch (Genesis 5), and perhaps Moses (Jude 9) comes to mind. It is the “exaltation” of Mary they object to rather than merely that her body and soul is in heaven.

By this statement then logically NO christian should have problems believing in the rapture either.

 

[advert123]

CATHOLICS ARE TRUE BELIEVERS RIGHT READ THIS

**1 John 5:21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols.

Acts 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.

SO ARENT YOU SINNING? AND THIS IS FROM NEW TESTAMENT
**

 

[Indyann]

By this statement then logically NO christian should have problems believing in the rapture either.

Why would ANY Christian believe something invented in the 1800’s?

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Why would ANY Christian believe something invented in the 1800’s?

Begs the question about the assumption of Mary:shrug:

 

[flyersfan1088]

By this statement then logically NO christian should have problems believing in the rapture either.

According to the rapture theory there will be a second and a third coming of Christ. That’s why christians should have trouble believing in it. It’s opposed to scripture.

 

[Ahimsa]

According to the rapture theory there will be a second and a third coming of Christ. That’s why christians should have trouble believing in it. It’s opposed to scripture.

The idea of the rapture can easily exist within a “second-coming-only” theory. What’s “second-coming-only” in Latin? Solus-Secundus-Adventus?

 

[flyersfan1088]

The idea of the rapture can easily exist within a “second-coming-only” theory. What’s “second-coming-only” in Latin? Solus-Secundus-Adventus?

“second coming only” is not a theory, it’s scriptural fact. And the rapture can not possibly fit into it. I’ve heard people try to twist and contort it by saying that by coming halfway to earth, Jesus is not technically coming, but that is pure baloney. The rapture is a new invention.

 

[mozart-250]

According to the rapture theory there will be a second and a third coming of Christ. That’s why christians should have trouble believing in it. It’s opposed to scripture.

Not necessarily. If you believe the rapture comes after the tribulation (post-tribulationalism) there is only one event.

 

[caydamien02]

The same can be said about the teachings of the Catholic church, though. They were developed over thousands of years and heck, things still are changing to this day. Nothing is EVER concrete, especially when it comes to man-made teachings. This is true for EVERYONE!

if u said the teaching of Church is developed then u should be ashamed of adapting the Catholic teaching about the canon of scriptures thus compiled the BIBLE. the foundational doktrin of protestant is nonetheless “sola scriptura” which is the “Bible” (whether NIV or KJV) which consist consists of OT & NT… not the sola scriptura based on Judaism. if u mean the Jewish style of Sola Scriptura then u shud go to synagogue for worship. and u wud be doing so much Jewish ancesteral traditio( which is banned by our Lord) not of the Christ-apotolic tradition.

to being a protestant is to cease actknowledging the history.

Benedecat vod Deus:thumbsup:

 

[flyersfan1088]

Not necessarily. If you believe the rapture comes after the tribulation (post-tribulationalism) there is only one event.

I can’t believe in an idea that did not exist for the first 1800 plus years after the resurrection. It is not a development of doctrine, it is completely opposed to anything that anyone taught. It’s pure garbage.

 

[BelFarfalla]

I do understand probably more than what I should. But let me ask you this: the CC that exists today wasn’t created with all it’s doctrines and dogmas all at once, was it? Those teachings were developed over the years to the changing times. Ex.: mass is not said in Latin anymore very often, especially in the United States.

Jesus didn’t hand Peter a list of teachings when he told him to go out and preach, did he? No, it was something that happened over time.
That’s all I was getting at.

The language used for a mass is a practice or a discipline not dogma.

 

[mozart-250]

I can’t believe in an idea that did not exist for the first 1800 plus years after the resurrection. It is not a development of doctrine, it is completely opposed to anything that anyone taught. It’s pure garbage.

The pre-tribulation rapture was the one taught 1800 or so years after the fact, not the post-tribulation rapture.

I am quite certain Catholics believe in the post-tribulation rapture, although they may not call it that.

 

[Eileen_T]

I thought this was rather interesting.

The authors of the New Testament do draw on oral Tradition in addition to Old Testament Scripture. In several instances, they explicitly cite oral Tradition to support Christian doctrine. Not only does this observation undermine the doctrine of , but it lends positive support to the Catholic position of Scripture and Tradition as parallel conduits through which God brings us his revelation.

ORAL TRADITION IN THE NEW TESTAMENT by David Palm
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/ORALTRAD.HTM

 

[Mike_Brick]

Not necessarily. If you believe the rapture comes after the tribulation (post-tribulationalism) there is only one event.

Hi Mozart, it’s good to see your writing again. But isn’t the idea of the rapture devised so that the “true believers” of Christ would be called out from the earth and avoid the tribulation. If the so called rapture of the “Church” happens after the tribulation, what’s the point? (I’m not saying you believe the Rapture or not, but perhaps can help me understand their thinking.)

Peace

 

[Blue_Serenity]

I do understand probably more than what I should. But let me ask you this: the CC that exists today wasn’t created with all it’s doctrines and dogmas all at once, was it?

I love how no one has answered this question.

 

[Mike_Brick]

I love how no one has answered this question.

The basis for dogma, the “Deposit of Faith”, was provided by Jesus to His apostles, and they to their successors. So the basis for dogma was there in the beginning, but Jesus Himself told them he would send an “Advocate”, the Holy Spirit who would lead them to “Truth”. Yes the articulation/explanation of dogma took time to develop, no instruction book was provided, but the basis was there all along in the initial deposit of faith.

And I love the fact that good and decent believers debated long and hard, allowing for paryer and the intersession of the HS, before documenting dogma. A good example is the Canon of Holy Scripture, which took somewhere around 300 years to settle. They didn’t behave like Martin Luther who wrote:
“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)”. An Open Letter on Translating, By Dr. Martin Luther, 1483-1546, Translated from: “Sendbrief von Dolmetschen”.

 

[J1Priest]

Yes, the Apostles were “sola scripturists”. The New Testament didn’t exist, but the Tanakh/Septuagint certainly did. That was the scripture of “sola scriptura”.

Your turn.

If the Apostles and their disciples did believe in Sola Scriptura, then it would certainly be like this.
Yet they did not, they simply saw it as we do, as authority and authoritative. but not the sole authority, else they were heretics on listening to Jesus and on “making” their “own” doctrines (or doctrines passed down by Jesus through them to us)

And if they were SS’s, then that would mean that today Protestants would have to believe in the OT only

of course, Protestants will not accept this.