The Early Christians could not have believed in the Bible Alone

[Lampo]

Just wanted to get responses from folks that believe in the Bible Alone on this thought: The early Christians could not have believed in the Bible Alone because there was no Bible. I believe the first book of the NT was written for at least 10 years after Jesus’ death. The entire Bible was written for at least 45 years after Jesus’ death. Didn’t the word of God get spread orally?

I thought about his today when I heard on the radio that some protestant denominations wanted to get back to the ways of the early Christians. I thought the first thing they need to do is eliminate Sola Scriptura from their theology. I believe John Martignoni also touched on this same idea in one of his talks.

Do Sola Scripturalists think this is irrelevant? Thanks.

 

[Contarini]

Just wanted to get responses from folks that believe in the Bible Alone on this thought: The early Christians could not have believed in the Bible Alone because there was no Bible. I believe the first book of the NT was written for at least 10 years after Jesus’ death. The entire Bible was written for at least 45 years after Jesus’ death. Didn’t the word of God get spread orally?

I thought about his today when I heard on the radio that some protestant denominations wanted to get back to the ways of the early Christians. I thought the first thing they need to do is eliminate Sola Scriptura from their theology. I believe John Martignoni also touched on this same idea in one of his talks.

Do Sola Scripturalists think this is irrelevant? Thanks.

Of course it’s irrelevant, because the point of Sola Scriptura is not “nothing is divinely revealed unless it is written down.” The point of Sola Scriptura is “nothing can be added to the original divine revelation, and that revelation was eventually written down and recognized by the Church in the form of the New Testament.”

This is one of the dumbest arguments Catholics come up with. It only gains any traction at all because many Protestants don’t think about what “sola scriptura” really means–just as many Catholics don’t think about the meaning of their doctrines and are prey to even sillier arguments proposed by Protestant propagandists.

I for one have no problem with oral tradition in principle (admittedly I’m not a typical Protestant). The problem is the nebulous nature of Catholic tradition, which thus resolves into “whatever the Church says is Saccred Tradition.”

Edwin

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Edwin, here is a link to all references of Sacred Tradition in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=sacred+tradition&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

Now, believe it or not, while you may think your statement shows the 'dumbness" of the Catholic church, in that. .

.whatever the Church says is Sacred Tradition."

, it actually shows the WISDOM of the church. Tradition and Scripture are two parts of a whole, neither of them contradicting the other, and both representing ETERNAL AND UNCHANGING TRUTH.

There is no such thing as a “new” Sacred Tradition just as there is no such thing as a “new written revelation”. The Church “says” what is Sacred Tradition with the same authority that she “says” what is the inspired word of God or Scripture.

And your affiliation held to this until 500 years ago. 1500 years with no problem then suddenly . . .?

 

[Lampo]

The point of Sola Scriptura is “nothing can be added to the original divine revelation, and that revelation was eventually written down and recognized by the Church in the form of the New Testament.”

Edwin

Didn’t Luther add to and take away from the original divine revelation?

 

[Mystophilus]

Didn’t Luther add to and take away from the original divine revelation?

At some point around the end of the C1st, the Jews closed the canon of the third part of the Hebrew Bible, the Tanakh. They excluded a few texts because these lacked Hebrew originals.

Jerome translated the Christian Bible into Latin in the late C4th, but was unable to locate Hebrew originals for some of the texts, which he therefore labelled in his prologues as being not among the ‘canonical’ texts, but which he translated because his patron required it.

Luther seized upon the reservations of the Jews and Jerome to firmly exclude those texts from the Bible, setting the modern Protestant canon. He was not actually ‘removing’ them, because they had never officially been part of the canon.

One of the acts of the Council of Trent was to ratify the modern Catholic canon, in 1546, including the texts which Luther had excluded, because Catholics had been reading them for centuries, and they had become part of the tradition of the faith.

The end result was that the two groups had two different Bibles, allowing Christians to argue eternally about who has the ‘right’ canon.

 

[Singinbeauty]

sigh

I thought I would jump in here, not because I believe in ‘Bible Alone’ I believe that the Holy Spirit is a HUGE element when it comes to interpreting the Bible and God’s meaning within it. But for now I won’t necessarily get into that…

No, the bible did not exist when christianity was cutting it’s teeth in ancient times. They had something MUCH better. They had Jesus himself PLUS His disciples of whom He had taught face to face. What do you think makes up the NT? The teachings of Jesus. The words that He actually spoke from His human yet divine lips. The NT is also made up of letters that the disciples had written to various churches. THESE THINGS WERE THE BIBLE (and still are today). It just wasn’t organized as it is today.

So, though the bible wasn’t put together in the form that we have it doesn’t mean it didn’t exist. Jesus didn’t teach scripture alone because He was LIVING scripture. He taught from the OT while creating the NT. Jesus didn’t teach ‘Bible Alone’ because the bible didn’t exist then BUT while NOT teaching it He created the Holy Bible in which holds the Truths that we seek today.

 

[Lampo]

I thought the Canon was established around 382 AD at the Council of Hippo and then at Carthage a few years later. That Canon is exactly the same as the Catholic Bible today. 73 total books.

Mark 13:31 - heaven and earth will pass away, but Jesus’ Word will not pass away. But Jesus never says anything about His Word being entirely committed to a book. Also, it took 400 years to compile the Bible, and another 1,000 years to invent the printing press. How was the Word of God communicated? Orally, by the bishops of the Church, with the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Contarini]

Didn’t Luther add to and take away from the original divine revelation?

How? Please don’t give me that “he added a word” nonsense. Only people who have never tried to translate anything could find that convincing. You have to add words in translation all the time–the idea of a literal word-for-word translation is nonsense.

As for Luther’s questions about the canon, the books he questioned were books that had historically been questioned. And as everyone who’s followed these debates at all knows, he put the books in an appendix–he didn’t take them away. He simply noted their disputed status.

Name me one book that Luther questioned that had not been questioned in the early Church.

At any rate, since Luther is in no sense the doctrinal standard for my faith, it ultimately doesn’t matter. Luther goofed plenty, just like everyone else. The burden of proof is on the Church that claims not to have goofed (doctrinally).

If you look at the patristic lists of canonical books, you’ll see that they vary around the edges quite a bit. There’s good reason to say–as a number of theologians before the Reformation said–that to prove doctrine you should appeal to those books that have not been questioned. The outright rejection by most modern Protestants of the deuterocanonical OT books is a serious mistake–even more serious, perhaps, than the “RC” mistake of giving them equal status with the books of the Hebrew canon.

Edwin

 

[Lampo]

How? Please don’t give me that “he added a word” nonsense. Only people who have never tried to translate anything could find that convincing. You have to add words in translation all the time–the idea of a literal word-for-word translation is nonsense.

As for Luther’s questions about the canon, the books he questioned were books that had historically been questioned. And as everyone who’s followed these debates at all knows, he put the books in an appendix–he didn’t take them away. He simply noted their disputed status.

Name me one book that Luther questioned that had not been questioned in the early Church.

At any rate, since Luther is in no sense the doctrinal standard for my faith, it ultimately doesn’t matter. Luther goofed plenty, just like everyone else. The burden of proof is on the Church that claims not to have goofed (doctrinally).

If you look at the patristic lists of canonical books, you’ll see that they vary around the edges quite a bit. There’s good reason to say–as a number of theologians before the Reformation said–that to prove doctrine you should appeal to those books that have not been questioned. The outright rejection by most modern Protestants of the deuterocanonical OT books is a serious mistake–even more serious, perhaps, than the “RC” mistake of giving them equal status with the books of the Hebrew canon.

Edwin

Okay, that’s what I was going to say; Luther added the word “alone” in Romans 3:28. Also, didn’t Luther only include them in an appendix because of the convincing of fellow Protestants? In fact, didn’t he also want to 86 the Book of James and Revelation but kept them for the same reason as mentioned above?

I am ignorant as far as those books being questioned by Luther and the early Church.

 

[Mickey]

Also, didn’t Luther only include them in an appendix because of the convincing of fellow Protestants?

That would be difficult to prove.

 

[Fidelis]

Of course it’s irrelevant, because the point of Sola Scriptura is not “nothing is divinely revealed unless it is written down.” The point of Sola Scriptura is “nothing can be added to the original divine revelation, and that revelation was eventually written down and recognized by the Church in the form of the New Testament.”

This is one of the dumbest arguments Catholics come up with.

Actually, Edwin, it’s not, because it has forced Protestants to re-image their definition of Sola Scriptura. For example, the definition that you give is one of relatively recent origin and would have been unrecognizable to the early “Reformers” (and to most fundamentalists today, for that matter). These more recent, squishy, redefinitions of SS have come about as a result of thinking Protestants, under pressure by Catholic apologists, recognizing the non-viability of the classic, historic (Protestant) formulation.

The definition you gave has the additional weakness is that it is more of a *description *of SS, rather than how it is applied in practical terms.

 

[Contarini]

Actually, Edwin, it’s not, because it has forced Protestants to re-image their definition of Sola Scriptura. For example, the definition that you give is one of relatively recent origin and would have been unrecognizable to the early “Reformers” (and to most fundamentalists today, for that matter).

No, you’re wrong. I actually derived this definition from the writings of Martin Chemnitz, one of the major second-generation Lutheran figures. Chemnitz argued that the OT was essentially a written revelation, while the NT was essentially oral and reduced to writing only accidentally (I’m using “accidentally” in its technical meaning–obviously it wasn’t an “accident” in the colloquial sense).

You are right that Catholic pressure forced Protestants to clarify their initially rather naive understanding of Scriptural authority, but this happened long ago. The problem is that with 18th-century “common sense” philosophy, the Bible was redefined as a handbook of self-evident truths, which it clearly isn’t. That’s the understanding you’re up against in Protestant fundamentalism, and that is in fact a modern understanding (though it goes back a few centuries).

Furthermore, even if you were right, exactly the same thing is true of many contemporary Catholic views. Many of the arguments Catholic apologetics make were forged under Protestant pressure and would have seemed really weird to the Council of Trent. (I still marvel at the fact that Catholics can reconcile the material sufficiency of Scripture with the decrees of Trent, though I’m glad that they do so and I’m not going to tell them that their reading of Trent is erroneous.)

Protestants and Catholics have both modified their positions under pressure from the other side, and this is a Very Good Thing. It’s not some kind of argument for the inauthenticity of either position.

The definition you gave has the additional weakness is that it is more of a *description *of SS, rather than how it is applied in practical terms.

It’s not a weakness, because that is the question at hand.

Edwin

 

[Fidelis]

No, the bible did not exist when christianity was cutting it’s teeth in ancient times. They had something MUCH better. They had Jesus himself PLUS His disciples of whom He had taught face to face. What do you think makes up the NT? The teachings of Jesus. The words that He actually spoke from His human yet divine lips. The NT is also made up of letters that the disciples had written to various churches. THESE THINGS WERE THE BIBLE (and still are today). It just wasn’t organized as it is today.

So, though the bible wasn’t put together in the form that we have it doesn’t mean it didn’t exist. Jesus didn’t teach scripture alone because He was LIVING scripture. He taught from the OT while creating the NT. Jesus didn’t teach ‘Bible Alone’ because the bible didn’t exist then BUT while NOT teaching it He created the Holy Bible in which holds the Truths that we seek today.

This explanation has a serious flaw, in that it fails to take in consideration several things.

1. Granted, the early Church was given direct revelation from Jesus and the Apostles; no NT needed during this time. But what about after the death of the last apostle (thought to be John, around AD 100)?
2. Well, you might say, that’s when written revelation took over – the gospels, the letters of Paul and other apostles, etc. HOWEVER the Church did not agree on and approve a canonical list until at least until the year AD 382! Until that time there were scads of writings floating around the early Church – some inspired, and some (like the Gospel of Peter) that, though they were accepted by a few local churches, were eventually ruled to be not inspired by the Church as a whole. During this time, between the death of the last Apostle and the setting of the canon who was the authoritive voice in the Church? The obvious answer is that it was the succesors of the Apostles, the bishops who, guided by the Holy Spirit as Christ promised, faithfully handed on the apostolic teaching and decided the canon of Scripture.

It is worth noting that, while there is no scriptural prescription for the establishment of Sola Scriptura as the norm for Christians, there is plenty for the establishment of an authoritive Church – one that can and did establish the canon. If this authority can establish the canon, it follows that it is the only authority that can definitively interpret it.

 

[cathlicnlovinit]

I have a question that somewhat applies. How do protestants (especially those that are more learned in church history respond or react to the Didiche (did I spell it correctly?) While I know that various people interpret the Church Fathers in different ways, I was under the impression that the Didiche was essentially clear in expressing “Catholic” beliefs. Do protestants ignore it, have a different interpretation of it, not care or have another explanation for what it says. I am not asking rhetorically or sarcastically, I am really interested in what the protestant response to the writings is.

 

[Contarini]

If this authority can establish the canon, it follows that it is the only authority that can definitively interpret it.

Why does that follow? It’s certainly reasonable, but not a necessary conclusion.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I have a question that somewhat applies. How do protestants (especially those that are more learned in church history respond or react to the Didiche (did I spell it correctly?) While I know that various people interpret the Church Fathers in different ways, I was under the impression that the Didiche was essentially clear in expressing “Catholic” beliefs.

I would challenge that. The Didache has what looks like a Eucharistic liturgy with not the slightest hint of Real Presence. My understanding was that it was somewhat of an embarrassment to Catholics. I know that some Anglican scholars (with an essentially Catholic theology of the Sacraments) have tried to argue that the liturgy in question isn’t Eucharistic at all but simply a table grace–so great was their discomfort with the minimal Eucharistic theology found in the text.

What about the Didache did you have in mind exactly? Certainly the soteriology is very far from classical Protestantism.

Edwin

 

[Fidelis]

Why does that follow? It’s certainly reasonable, but not a necessary conclusion.

Edwin

Because both acts – both the establishment of a canon and it’s interpretation – require a single authority. For any given body of belief you cannot have two – let alone several – authorities because it is a contradiction in terms of the grossest sort and an imposition from something or someone outside that original authority.

It would be like a foreign country (or even an individual citizen) interpreting the U.S. Constitution. We would rightly say “I know you have your opinion but we have our own Supreme Court that the Founding Fathers established to do just that, thank you.”

 

[Lampo]

John Martignoni put it like this: “It’s like going up to the author of a book you just finished reading and telling him what the book was about. The author say, ‘No, that’s not what I meant at all.’ The person, says, ‘Well, I don’t care, that’s how I understand it.’” Or something to that effect.

 

[Ziggy]

Someone mentioned Jerome… so I wanted to add this…

It is true that Jerome, and a few other isolated writers, did not accept most of the deuterocanonicals as Scripture. However, Jerome was persuaded, against his original inclination, to include the deuterocanonicals in his Vulgate edition of the Scriptures-testimony to the fact that the books were commonly accepted and were expected to be included in any edition of the Scriptures.
Furthermore, it can be documented that in his later years Jerome did accept certain deuterocanonical parts of the Bible. In his reply to Rufinus, he stoutly defended the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel even though the Jews of his day did not.
He wrote, “What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us” (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]). Thus Jerome acknowledged the principle by which the canon was settled – the judgment of the Church, not of later Jews

cin.org/users/james/files/deuteros.htm

 

[cathlicnlovinit]

I would challenge that. The Didache has what looks like a Eucharistic liturgy with not the slightest hint of Real Presence. My understanding was that it was somewhat of an embarrassment to Catholics. I know that some Anglican scholars (with an essentially Catholic theology of the Sacraments) have tried to argue that the liturgy in question isn’t Eucharistic at all but simply a table grace–so great was their discomfort with the minimal Eucharistic theology found in the text.

What about the Didache did you have in mind exactly? Certainly the soteriology is very far from classical Protestantism.

Edwin

To be very honest, I am not speaking from the position of someone who knows very much about it. I have a volume of early church writings including the Didache but having a two year old and one on the way does not allow alot of time for religious studies. As you could see I did not even spell the name correctly. However, from listening to discussions, particularly from more learned Catholic apologists (sorry, I have no references at this time) it appeared that the writings in the Didache had much more of a Catholic tilt. So much so that it provided a challenge to protestants who were looking for or claiming to have a grasp on the primative Christian church and exactly what that means. The soteriology could be an example. However, I am thinking of many things, things that might be more troubling for fundamentalists and certain evangelicals like church governance, infant baptism aspects of sacraments. Maybe I was too broad in saying protestant because in some aspects Episcopalians and Catholics have things in common that we (together) may not with fundamentalist/evangelicals. So any insight that you have may be helpful.