The major problem with sola scriptura is that it does not work from a historical perspective.
For example, the New Testament (NT) books were not completed till the end of the first century and even then certain Christian communities did not accept as inspired all of the New Testament books that we have today.
The earliest New Testament writings are Paul’s letters to the Thessalonians, I believe, which were written around 20 years after Jesus’ death and resurrection. The Gospels were completed later (the years vary according to which scholar you read but I think it is safe to say that none of them were completed prior to 50 A.D.)
So, let’s say that I am a Christian believer going to Church in the year 60 A.D. Remember there is no New Testament as we have today and maybe three out of the four Gospels that we consider inspired today are even complete (I believe St. John’s Gospel was the last one to be written and it would not have been completed prior to 60 A.D.). Also, not all of the Churches would have all of the letters of St. Paul and some Churches rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Book of Revelation as inspired so they would not use those books in their Church services.
In addition, remember that there was no such thing as a printing press in 60 A.D. and all people had was parchment. To make copies of any writings was long and laborious and expensive. Most people could not afford to have copies of parchment laying around and even if they did there was no guarantee that they could even read it because the average joe in the 1st century was not necessarily literate either. So, you have this problem that even if a person could read they probably could not afford to have copies of parchment laying around the house. (It was not uncommon for a single copy of some book on parchment could cost at least a years’ wages or more.)
Since the above was the case historically, how did a Christian in 60 A.D. learn of Christ and determine what was true when it came to faith and morals since he really had no New Testament or Old Testament books to read on his own?
This is a real historical problem for our Protestant friends who believe that the Early Church practiced sola scriptura as they do today. From a practical perspective the Early Church could not have had anything like sola scriptura. It was just a practical and cultural impossibility.
However, what the Early Christians did have was the oral tradition of the Apostles handed down to the people through the Apostles and their successors and then as the NT canon developed over time, Sacred Scripture, (which consisted of the Old Testament and the developing New Testament) was used to pass the faith along to the community. This idea that people in the 1st Century somehow sat at home and read their NT and OT parchments themselves and then went to the house Churches to discuss their own private interpretations is just fiction and has no basis in fact.
If you want to read a really good book on the development of the New Testament Canon get the book “The Canon of the New Testament its Origin, Development and Significance” by Bruce Metzger. This book went a long way in helping me to see that Sola Scriptura is a later invention and was not something that the early church used or could have used as a final authority on matters of faith and morals. I should point out that Bruce Metzger is not Catholic.
Jeff S.
www.catholicxjw.com
