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.
Did Sola Scriptura exist at the time of the Apostles, and if not why should we accept it today?

Convince me Sola Scriptura existed in the early Church and I will become a Protestant. That is the challenge… 😃
Clearly Sola Scriptura as Bible Alone defines it did not exist in Jesus’ day – that is why Judaism was/is divided the way it was/is then and today. The Jews had tradition along with scripture.

The apostles preaching would be the scripture for the church back then, and their preaching and teaching was written down in the NT. Anything outside of the NT would have to be verified as coming from the apostles to be accepted.

So, in short, one should follow Acts 2, that is be engulfed with the apostles teachings.

šŸ‘
 
SYRIAC ORTHODOX PATRIARCH OF ANTIOCH IS THE ACTUAL SUCCESSOR OF ST. PETER

From Bible We Know That Our Lord Has Given The Authority To

St.peter. Our Lord Says That He Will Build His Church On

Peter.
In The First Centuries, Bishop Of Antioch Was Superior To

All The Other Bishops In Rome And Alexandria. His Territory

Extended To All The Then Known Parts Of The World. Entire

Persia, India, Middle East, China Was Under The Control Of

Patriarch Of Antioch. If We Go Through The Historical

Documents He Was Regarded As The Succesor Of St. Peter. We

Can See Around 7 Letters Written By Ignatius, Bishop Of

Antioch To 7 Churches.
In The First Centuries There Was A Dispute Between Rome And

Antioch About The Successor Of Peter. If We Check The Bible,

There Is Nothing Said About The Authority Of Pope Or Rome.

Even You Check The Letter Of Paul To Romans. Nothing Is

Mentioned About The Primacy Of Roman Church.
There Is No Evidence That Peter Had Gone To Rome.
From Bible We Can Find That It Is Paul Who Had Founded The

Church Of Rome.
In The 4th And Fifth Centuries, Because Of The Influence Of

Byzantine Emperors, A New Patriarch Emerged At

Constantinople. Then The Emperor Tried To Destroy The Church

At Antioch. The Gave The Superiority To Patriarch Of

Constantinople.
In 1451, The Council Of Chalcedon Declared That The Pope Of

Rome Leo Is The Succesosr Of Peter And Head Of The Church.
After All These Events, In The 5th Century The Patriarch Of

Antioch Severus Was Deposed By The Byzantine Emperor. Those

Persons Who Accepted Pope Of Rome As The Head Were Appointed

As Bishops Of Antioch.
If We Check The Tradition And Liturgy Of Churches In India

And Middle East, We Can See That They Are Following

Antichene Tradition.
As A Result Proclaiming The Superiority Of Patriarch Of

Antioch, Jacob A Bishop Appointed Sergius Of Tella As The

Bishop Of Antioch. The Jacobite Patriarchs Then Came. They

Are The Actual Head Of The Christian Church.
We Must Know That These Europeans Are Actually Barbarians.

They Have No Culture. Now Also We Can See This. It Is Sure

That These Americans And Europeans Are Engahged In Sex With

Many People Even Before 13 Years Of Age. It Means That They

Have A Barbarian Tradition. But They Are Controllingt The

Economy Of The Whole World. They Are Propagating The Pope Of

Rome As Successor Of Peter. That Is Necessary For Their

Superiority And Existence Of Economic Power.
We Must Know The Fact That The Entire Middle East, Persia

Was Christian Before The 6 Th Century. They Were Under

Patriarch Of Antioch. Because Of Many Wars And Attack Of

Islam, Forceful Conversion By Islam Christianity In Middle

East, Persia Have Got Destroyed. The Patriarch Of Antioch

Was Under The Supervision Of Islamic Rulers.
The Colonial Invasion By British, Portugese , Dutch ,french

Resulted In The Forceful Conversion Of Those Who Were Under

The Control Of Patriarch Of Antioch To Roman Pope.
For Example, Portugese Forcefully Converted Christians Under

Antioch In India To Rome. French Forcefully Converted

Christians In Iraq Under Antioch To Roman Pope.
Through These 2000 Years It Is The Patriarch Of Antioch Who

Suffered Most. He Was In Caves Or Forests For Many Centuries

In Fear Of European Powers, Muslims, Byzantines.
If We Look At The History Of Roman Popes , Many Had

Children, Many Had Married, Many Had Children Before

Marriage, Many Became Popes At The Age Of 12 Or 13.
The Documents Now Qwe Have Proclaiming The Authority Of

Rome, Are All Fake. They Are False Documents Created During

The Reign Of Charlemagne, The 8 Th Century Roman Emperor Who

Saved Rome From Muslims.
The Reason Why All Are Proclaiming The Roman Pope Is Money

Only. The Roman Catholics Are Getting A Large Amount Money

From Europe. The Patriarch Of Anticoh Has Nothing.
In Short , The Patriarch Of Antioch Is The Successsor Of St.

Peter And Head Of The Church.
Now The Roman Pope Is Benedict 16. He Is One Of The Great

Persons Living In This World. He Is One Of The Great

Scholars In This Century. He Knows The Fact That Anticoh

Patriarch Is The Actual Head. From His Moves, We Have Got

The Perception That Something Will Take Place Soon. All The

Bishops And Historians In This World Know The Fact That

Patriarch Of Antioch Is The Peter’s Successor.

But Money Can Make A False True.
Reply With Quote
 
I do understand probably more than what I should. :o 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. :o
The Mass being said in Latin or the vernacular is the exact description of a discipline and not a dogma.
 
Hi Mozart, it’s good to see your writing again. But isn’t the idea of the rapture devised so that the ā€œtrue believersā€ of Christ would be called out from the earth and avoid the tribulation. If the so called rapture of the ā€œChurchā€ 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
Actually the rapture is just a name given to the event described by 1 Thess. 4:13-17.

The timing of this event is is not specified in this passage.

Those that believe in a pre-tribulation rapture believe that yes part of the purpose of the rapture is so that believers avoid the tribulation. But there are those of us post-tribulation foks who believe…yes there is a rapture…but at the end of the tribulation…and it is not that believers can avoid…well tribulation.

I think Catholicism believes in a post-tribulation rapture, but they do not term it as stuff.

And then there are the mid-trib folks.

And then there was this church I attended that believed there were three raptures…pre, post, and mid. It was kind of wierd.
 
Actually the rapture is just a name given to the event described by 1 Thess. 4:13-17.

The timing of this event is is not specified in this passage.

Those that believe in a pre-tribulation rapture believe that yes part of the purpose of the rapture is so that believers avoid the tribulation. But there are those of us post-tribulation foks who believe…yes there is a rapture…but at the end of the tribulation…and it is not that believers can avoid…well tribulation.

I think Catholicism believes in a post-tribulation rapture, but they do not term it as stuff.

And then there are the mid-trib folks.

And then there was this church I attended that believed there were three raptures…pre, post, and mid. It was kind of wierd.
Yes, Mozart, I hope that all Christians believe and await Jesus’ coming once again at the end of time, where in the final judgement the saints will be called to heaven and the condemmed will be banished to hell. On that we can easily agree. If some want to call that the ā€œraptureā€, I can live with that, but if they believe Jesus will come again twice, and the saints will avoid tribulation, that’s very false doctrine. The ā€œsaintsā€ of the Church have faced tribulation from the beginning, and will do so until the end of time, after which there will be no more suffering for them.

Peace
Mike
 
The Bible wasn’t around then so there was no ā€œscripturaā€ yet. šŸ˜‰
Acts 17:10-12 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed; also of honorable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

No ā€œscripturaā€ yet??? What was the Bereans reading? The daily Berean Bugle? We are clearly shown here that they were searching the ā€œSCRIPTURESā€ so yes there was indeed ā€œscripturaā€.

As for whether sola scriptura existed at the time of the apostles or not? For the Bereans it existed. Note that they did not consult priest, or tradition to see if what the apostle Paul was teaching was true, they searched the Scriptures daily to see if what he said was true.

Also note how the apostle Paul commends the Bereans for consulting the Scriptures. He didn’t condemn them, and say how they should have trusted him, and the traditions. So if sola scriptura wasn’t condemned by the apostle Paul, why is it condemned by the Catholic church?

In the name of Jesus,

Ken
 
Yes, Mozart, I hope that all Christians believe and await Jesus’ coming once again at the end of time, where in the final judgement the saints will be called to heaven and the condemmed will be banished to hell. On that we can easily agree. If some want to call that the ā€œraptureā€, I can live with that, but if they believe Jesus will come again twice, and the saints will avoid tribulation, that’s very false doctrine. The ā€œsaintsā€ of the Church have faced tribulation from the beginning, and will do so until the end of time, after which there will be no more suffering for them.

Peace
Mike
Mike:
I have always believed in a post-tribulation rapture myself. That seems to agree with the simplest reading of Matthew 24. I suppose that makes me a heretic in the sight of some Baptists but whatever.

Besides the historical track record of ā€œThe Late Great Planet Earthā€ types has not been all that great. The book had to be rewritten and all of the predictions that did not quite pan out removed.
 
**No ā€œscripturaā€ yet??? What was the Bereans reading? The daily Berean Bugle? We are clearly shown here that they were searching the ā€œSCRIPTURESā€ so yes there was indeed ā€œscripturaā€.

As for whether sola scriptura existed at the time of the apostles or not? For the Bereans it existed. Note that they did not consult priest, or tradition to see if what the apostle Paul was teaching was true, they searched the Scriptures daily to see if what he said was true.

In the name of Jesus,Ken**
Ken, yes the Jews of that time relied on scripture, but they also followed their ā€œtraditionsā€ too, (I’m not saying here that they were correct in so doing). But for scripture all they had were the Hebrew Scriptures, the Old Testament. While the Hebrew Scriptures contained the prophecy of the Messiah, they did not provide Christians instruction on following Jesus and daily holiness. So, yes they checked with the Hebrew Scriptures to see if what Paul and others following and preaching Jesus as the Jewish Messiah promised long ago, actually was Him. I hope you are not believing and telling us the Jewish Scriptures alone are useful for all the reasons cited in Thessalonians.
 
Did Sola Scriptura exist at the time of the Apostles, and if not why should we accept it today?

Convince me Sola Scriptura existed in the early Church and I will become a Protestant. That is the challenge… 😃
Which type of Protestant? Southern Baptist? High Church Anglican, LCMS Lutheran?? Which type of Protestant I am curious.
 
What came first? The church or the bible? Did Jesus give his disciples instructions or did he say ā€œI’m leaving and you all figure it outā€.:hmmm:
 
What came first? The church or the bible? Did Jesus give h:hmmm: is disciples instructions or did he say ā€œI’m leaving and you all figure it outā€.
They both progressed. I do believe that what Christ spoke of can be found in the Gospels. My NIV Bible has his own words in red. Anything else that he spoke of to his disciples, we have no accurate way of knowing. Have you ever did the experiment of whispering something to one person and then having that person whisper it to another and then that person to another until you have gotten to about the 7th or 8th person? The message from the 8th person in no way resembles the original message.
 
They both progressed. I do believe that what Christ spoke of can be found in the Gospels. My NIV Bible has his own words in red. Anything else that he spoke of to his disciples, we have no accurate way of knowing. Have you ever did the experiment of whispering something to one person and then having that person whisper it to another and then that person to another until you have gotten to about the 7th or 8th person? The message from the 8th person in no way resembles the original message.
Branden, my brother, are you equating the spread of the Gospel of Jesus the Christ with a parlor game?

God Bless
 
My NIV Bible has his own words in red.
That’s just plain stupid. I have seen those simpleton Bibles. With the multi-colored highlighted passages.

Editing like that is someone else telling you what to think. What to read.

And you have the nerve to spew such hate against Catholicism? You should focus your rose colored glasses on your own defective form of theology. Its obvioulsy a satanically influenced false doctrine. Tim 6:3-4
 
They both progressed. I do believe that what Christ spoke of can be found in the Gospels. My NIV Bible has his own words in red. Anything else that he spoke of to his disciples, we have no accurate way of knowing. Have you ever did the experiment of whispering something to one person and then having that person whisper it to another and then that person to another until you have gotten to about the 7th or 8th person? The message from the 8th person in no way resembles the original message.
Brandon, since your a expert of just about anything Catholic, can you explain why your NIV bible is missing 7 books. Or is that another Catholic conspiracy. My understanding is Martin Luther took them out due to being pro-Cathoic.
 
That’s just plain stupid. I have seen those simpleton Bibles. With the multi-colored highlighted passages.

Editing like that is someone else telling you what to think. What to read.

And you have the nerve to spew such hate against Catholicism? You should focus your rose colored glasses on your own defective form of theology. Its obvioulsy a satanically influenced false doctrine. Tim 6:3-4
Branden: While I do not agree with SFCatholic’s use of such harsh words in his/her reply to you, I have had a similar experience where my mother-in-law, a devout So. Baptist once told me Jesus Himself wrote those red words with pen and ink He wrote them! LOL:extrahappy: :extrahappy: Of course I didn’t bother to argue with her because it would be a waste of breath!

Peace & Love
 
Did Sola Scriptura exist at the time of the Apostles?
Early Christians judged doctrine by the rule and norm of Apostolic teaching.

That is what we do today, judge doctrine by the rule and norm of Apostolic teaching. The only difference is that the Sola source that we have 2000 years later is the Apostolic teachings that were recorded in writing.

All Sola Scriptura is (at least according to Lutherans) is judging a doctrine against the most reliable information available. Scripture is the only source we can truly count on so we use that.
 
Early Christians judged doctrine by the rule and norm of Apostolic teaching.

That is what we do today, judge doctrine by the rule and norm of Apostolic teaching. The only difference is that the Sola source that we have 2000 years later is the Apostolic teachings that were recorded in writing.

All Sola Scriptura is (at least according to Lutherans) is judging a doctrine against the most reliable information available. Scripture is the only source we can truly count on so we use that.
Better said would be, after Luther’s reformation, scripture is all you have left, (he and more importantly his successors tossed out 1500 years of capital ā€œTā€ Tradition and history), so you can only rely on what’s left for you. We here at home in the CC have kept the whole deposit of faith intact, and rely on all of it, not just the written deposit. And yes, one source must always agree with the other, not conflict with it!

Peace to You All!
 
Better said would be, after Luther’s reformation, scripture is all you have left, (he and more importantly his successors tossed out 1500 years of capital ā€œTā€ Tradition and history), so you can only rely on what’s left for you. We here at home in the CC have kept the whole deposit of faith intact, and rely on all of it, not just the written deposit. And yes, one source must always agree with the other, not conflict with it!

Peace to You All!
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.
 
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.
I have a question about your quote. If salvation is a free gift, why do you have to accept it? That implies you have to work for the gift.
 
I have a question about your quote. If salvation is a free gift, why do you have to accept it? That implies you have to work for the gift.
If a man is drowning and someone throws him a life buoy, is a meritorious work when that man grabs the buoy instead of choosing to drown?

If a father sets a dinner table for his son is it a meritorious work when the son sits down to eat instead of heading to his room to starve?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top