This is the conclusion many non-Catholics consider to be begging the question. That the Apostles spoke truth is not up for debate, but early on (even after Pentecost) we see that they can err (Peter was withstood by Paul in public for his actions which Paul obviously thought were extremely damaging to the gospel message), and Paul said that even if he or an angel from heaven teach a different gospel to let them be accursed, showing he certainly considered himself capable of making a mistake. Jesus asked if He would find faith on the earth when He returns. We are warned constantly of false teachers, and see that large segments and leaders within the early church were already lead astray.
Just because Peter (and all the apostles and other writers of the NT for that matter) were not personally impeccable does not mean that they were not infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit. I think we can agree the authors of the NT were infallibly guided in their writing at the very least. Just like the Pope today can certainly err, yet we believe he is infallible in certain matters.
My post already covers this. Sola scriptura is not solo scriptura, as far as I know, no non-Catholic Christian denies that the gospel itself, the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, was first transmitted orally. The Bereans then were praised because they searched scripture to see if what the Apostle’s taught lined up with the prophecies and the teachings of God in the OT. When the writings of the NT were available, even in individual letter or book form, it became possible to compare and contrast what a local church leader was teaching with what was contained in the writings, and Paul makes it clear that scripture is key to being fully equipped for every good work, and that definitely includes the OT.
Interesting that you would bring up the Old Testament, since there were indeed many people who used scripture alone in the earliest time, and that scripture was the old testament. These groups were called Judaizers. These people, who were following the only scripture they had at the time, were ended up being incorrect. Thankfully, Paul was able to correct them (and ‘them’ includes Peter in this case).
No one is arguing that later revelation did not abrogate earlier revelation. You are pointing to a non-normative period, in order to compare it to a normative period. Unless new revelation is being given today, publicly, the point doesn’t hold.
Again, Sola Scriptura is not solo scriptura and no one denies that the Gospel message; Christ’s life, death, and resurrection was preached orally immediately after the events. What you contend is missing the point of false teachers; there were always false teachers, some of them were Judaizers. Both true teachers and false teachers, and even Satan utilized scripture. It is the Holy Spirit’s job to convict and to guide humanity, one of the ways He does so is by illuminating scripture, but ours is a living relationship and is not restricted to just reading. All of Christendom believes in preachers, teachers, prophets, evangelists, etc… The idea of preaching, even false preaching, does not contradict sola scriptura at all.
I’m showing that at one point (granted, a non-normative period) Sola Scriptura was not how God wanted his teachings to be understood. Today, many protestants believe that the bible alone is sufficient and that there is no need for an authoritative teaching Church. Therefore, something must have changed from then to now. What was the event (or events) that caused the change?
I agree, but as I mentioned, at one point scripture was not all that is necessary for salvation. Today, many protestants believe that scripture alone is necessary (even if preaching is good and helpful). What changed, and when?
It’s partly a straw man, because when you say “many Protestants,” what you actually mean is a very small percentage of Protestants (mostly in North America) that do not represent in any way the three primary Reformation traditions (Reformed, Lutheran and Anglican). All of three of those believe in authoritative ecclesiastical offices. All three possess confessions of faith/catechisms which are considered binding.
there are many catholics and non catholics / Protestants?- that do not have the holy spirit-- nor can they hear the Holy spirit talking to them and there fore – they do not know their “calling”
Can you please cite a moment in the Bible where Jesus rebuked a Jew for their understanding of Scripture without them having an extra interpretation that falls outside of Scripture?
Thank you for the clarification. Lets consider my question directed specifically at the small percentage of Protestants who believe in Sola Scriptura.
Nope, I don’t think I can. The Judaizers that I referred to were after Jesus’ assention.
That could happen, certainly. I am sure it has numerous times. However, that is not sola scriptura as our (Lutheran) confessions define it, since we do not discount the role of tradition, earlier interpretation, etc. We do not rely on “feeling.”
I can’t answer for any but my own tradition, of course. Sola scriptura would have been the normative system of doctrine after the canon was closed (by God, not by the church). Once apostolic preaching had ceased and the Scriptures were circulated among the churches, in other words. Note that that doesn’t mean that the church didn’t continue to possess apostolic teaching that had been committed prior. However, as we believe that tradition and Scripture are coterminus in what they teach in matters of doctrine, oral teaching could be checked against Scripture to determine whether it was a faithful tradition. Ireneaus did this against gnosticism.
Actually, Paul relies extensively on scripture to make his case against the Judaizers (Genesis 12, cf. Galatians 3, and especially Gal 3:8.) This is a good case study of sola scriptura (properly understood) in action.