Sola Scriptura - I'm Not Convinced

[catholicray]

Question 1

Alright this one is for the Protestants. We can acknowledge that there was a time when the Old Testament existed and the New Testament did not. I would like you to focus on the time between the ascension of Jesus into Heaven and the writing of the first book of the New Testament by St. Paul.

Jesus traditionally died 33 A.D. and the earliest estimates of St. Paul’s first writings are 50 A.D. So there is an estimated 17 years in which the Apostles were preaching the Gospel without a New Testament. During this time I would guess they gain a few Christians at least.

What I find interesting is that the Church exists during this 17 year period and yet the New Testament does not. Now if you are a Christian during this time and the Church practiced Sola Scriptura then that means the Old Testament was the sole infallible rule of your faith. Right?

So how do the earliest Christians allow books to be added to the sole infallible rule of their faith?

Given I have attempted to tear down an aspect of faith I would like to conclude with a building up as well. Personally I believe the connection from the Old Testament to the New Testament is understood if we understand that Jesus is the scriptura. I also believe we need a top down model of authority where God is the infallible rule of our faith and the Church is infallible and scripture is infallible with God and how he decides to have dominion over us.

 

[semper_catholicus]

I’m not convinced of sola scriptura either, because it cannot be found in scripture.

 

[Sbee0]

Matthew 2:23 And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, so that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, that he would be called a Nazarene.

“He would be called a Nazarene” is not found in the Old Testament. Therefore, must have been taught through the spoken Word of the prophets.

 

[rcwitness]

Sola Catechismists are quite unsound too.

Whatever we learn and hear, we have to allow the Holy Spirit to give us understanding of it.

I actually appreciate the profound depth of what Scripture possesses! More Catholics should contemplate Scripture.

 

[TULIPed]

Sola Scriptura for Protestants - reformed ones anyway - doesn’t mean we don’t find value in or respect church tradition, teaching or authority. Quite the contrary.

For example - even today - there are old-school reformed Presbyterian churches that you could go to and find the liturgy they practice are - broadly speaking - very similar to the order of worship you’re used to. Up until very recently (ok - 30 years ago), mainland Episcopal, Presbyterian, Lutheran and Methodist churches all used the Catholic lectionary. We all celebrate Christmas on the 25th of December. Many mainline denominations still celebrate the liturgical seasons. We have advent wreaths on our doors. We have chocolate Easter bunnies. Ok - perhaps that was a tradition too far…

Sola Scriptura for Protestants simply means that when we have questions of faith, the first and last place we go is the Bible. We, with the help of the Holy Spirit, do the best we can to always square tradition with scripture - and where there’s a conflict, Holy Scripture always wins.

But, scripture is sometimes hard to interpret, no? The first place Reformed Protestants go to help us interpret scripture is our knees. We ask the Holy Spirit for help. Then we go to our catechisms. Then we go to our pastors and commentary’s and other Believers (including Catholics even!) and look to them for help. Then we go back to the Bible. We do our best to “work out our salvation with fear and trembling.”

I’ve read the RCC - not cover to cover - but I’d wager a solid 3 quarters. The vast, vast majority - in fact pretty much all I’ve read now that I think about it - is crossed referenced with scripture. I think - I hope - we’re not as far apart as it seems…

 

[rcwitness]

That doesn’t seem far from what I believe the Catholic faith Teaches.

The fact that we place Magisterial Teaching on an equal level of authority of Scripture shouldn’t mean that Scripture is reduced, or can be trumped.

Its merely a different kind of authority. One that is able to interpret and apply the Revelation of Jesus found in Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

I agree we should allow His Spirit to give us understanding, and I think regarding Scripture, Sacred Tradition, Church Teaching, spirits, His will, etc.

 

[catholicray]

I understand what Sola Scriptura is. It merely states that the Bible is the sole infallible rule of your faith. Versus the wrong understanding that it means the Bible is the sole rule of your faith.

Of course I would argue that this model of authority means only the Bible is an authority and all other authority is imagined and only possible by agreement. But I’ll agree with you for the sake of conversation.

Even so my question stands. How do the first Christians logically add books to their sole infallible book (the Old Testament).

 

[deMontfort]

The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod’s take on Sola Scriptura:

“The Holy Scriptures are the sole source from which all doctrines proclaimed in the Christian Church must be taken and therefore, too, the sole rule and norm by which all teachers and doctrines must be examined and judged.”

• Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod

 

[catholicray]

“The Holy Scriptures are the sole source from which all doctrines proclaimed in the Christian Church must be taken

Right right …

Now apply this rule to the time period when Christians has the Old Testament and the first book of the New Testament was not written.

My question stands.

 

[MiserereMei]

Sola Scriptura, as I understand it, need not refer to a literal scriptura, that is, to something written. Rather, it means that the word of God alone is the sole rule and norm for doctrine. Before the Epistles and Gospels were written down, the preaching of the Apostles was nevertheless still the word of God, having been recieved from God himself, and so the principle still applies.

The term itself was coined as a defense against perceived human innovations that contradicted the written word of God. Since Truth cannot contradict Truth, a tradition which is contrary to the holy Scriptures cannot be regarded as part of the sacred Tradition. A tradition in the post-apostolic era which is not contradictory but nevertheless is also not supported by some passage of the written word must in caution be considered an uncertain thing, an adiaphoron which cannot bind consciences. A tradition, however, that is supported by the written word but merely expounds or applies what is written, can be confidently regarded as authentic and must be defended and preserved.

Each of the five Lutheran Solas is most properly understood from within their historical and polemical context. Sadly, many Protestants seem to make a mockery of the Solas by their misunderstanding.

 

[rcwitness]

I don’t think that is any sort of arguement against the sufficiency of Scripture.

What God willed to be written, and all the things Jesus did, aren’t the same thing.

Paul wrote alot of things that had little to do with what Jesus did.