The practice of sola scriptura from the 1st century to the 4th century...?

[joe370]

The bound codified bible, as we know it today, was not available to each and every 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th century Christian, geographically separated from one another, as it is today.

How could scripture alone have been the Christians all sufficient sole rule of faith and final authority for edification, resolving doctrinal differences, etc etc?

 

[Poof]

Good point, can’t wait for the responses.

The printing press came in around the 1440s. If Sola Scriptura is really true then I wonder how the general populace dealt without having a personal copy of the bible.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

The bound codified bible, as we know it today, was not available to each and every 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th century Christian, geographically separated from one another, as it is today.

How could scripture alone have been the Christians all sufficient sole rule of faith and final authority for edification, resolving doctrinal differences, etc etc?

It is true.
But what amazes me most, sorry for escaping the thread, but Scriptura was written by the Community !!!

 

[roads152]

Martin Luther and the protestant movement were more than a thousand years younger than the first four century men and women. Luther invented the sola scriptura doctrine to be different. No invention can predate its inventor.
Some might be claiming that sola scriptura was practiced in the first four centuries AD. Such can only be a wild dream. The definitive identification of the inspired writings did not happen before the fourth century AD.

 

[Edmundus1581]

The bound codified bible, as we know it today, was not available to each and every 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th century Christian, geographically separated from one another, as it is today.

How could scripture alone have been the Christians all sufficient sole rule of faith and final authority for edification, resolving doctrinal differences, etc etc?

Well, I have seen some great challenges to Sola Scriptura, but that is the neatest one I’ve seen!

(ex-Protestant myself, who started to ask these things)

 

[Heuchler]

Well the majority of people also couldn’t read until after the 1500s. Until the printing press it was too costly to make books and only the rich and the Catholic Church could afford them. It would take days for monks to copy a single Bible. So, for our faith to be based on a book alone would have been absurd to anyone before the advent of the printing press.

 

[JonNC]

The bound codified bible, as we know it today, was not available to each and every 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th century Christian, geographically separated from one another, as it is today.

How could scripture alone have been the Christians all sufficient sole rule of faith and final authority for edification, resolving doctrinal differences, etc etc?

Greetings, Joe, my good friend.
Truly, Joe, sola scriptura as a practice of the Church to hold teachers and teachings accountable was not a needed practice during the apostolic era, and probably not through the early councils. Perhaps one could speculate that the breakdown of Tradition approaching and following the Great Schism led to the need for a reliable norm, at least until such time as the Church could again find unity in Tradition.

Just a speculation on my part.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

Well, I have seen some great challenges to Sola Scriptura, but that is the neatest one I’ve seen!

(ex-Protestant myself, who started to ask these things)

Likewise,where does Jesus or the 12 teach the Bible-Alone is the final authority? That is what I have been waiting years to read.

 

[JonNC]

Likewise,where does Jesus or the 12 teach the Bible-Alone is the final authority? That is what I have been waiting years to read.

Greetings, Nicea.

You won’t read it because it isn’t there. You can read implications of scripture being “a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path”, and others. The fact is undeniable that ss is a post-apostolic practice of the Church, and ISTM is it is rooted in the breakdown of Tradition. As such, it certainly can’t be considered a doctrine that binds the conscience. It is, however, a basis for the practice of hermeunetics for the Church, to hold teachers, teachings, and doctrine accountable.

Jon

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon…

You won’t read it because it isn’t there. You can read implications of scripture being “a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path”, and others. The fact is undeniable that ss is a post-apostolic practice of the Church, and ISTM is it is rooted in the breakdown of Tradition.

Jon you are the only non-catholic friend of mine that has admitted, to me anyway, that ss is a post-apostolic practice. Of course even if there was a breakdown in apostolic tradition due to the east west schism, if ss was not taught by Jesus or the apostles or their successors to the umpteen generation, I am not sure why it should be practiced, at all.

Your thought my friend?

As such, it certainly can’t be considered a doctrine that binds the conscience. It is, however, a basis for the practice of hermeunetics for the Church, to hold teachers, teachings, and doctrine accountable.

I am still trying to figure out how scripture alone could be considered the basis for the practice of the science of interpretation of scripture without an authoritative interpreter?

 

[joe370]

Well the majority of people also couldn’t read until after the 1500s. Until the printing press it was too costly to make books and only the rich and the Catholic Church could afford them. It would take days for monks to copy a single Bible. So, for our faith to be based on a book alone would have been absurd to anyone before the advent of the printing press.

Exactly.

 

[joe370]

Well, I have seen some great challenges to Sola Scriptura, but that is the neatest one I’ve seen!

(ex-Protestant myself, who started to ask these things)

It was those types of questions that eventually pushed me off the proverbial fence as well.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

The bound codified bible, as we know it today, was not available to each and every 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th century Christian, geographically separated from one another, as it is today.

How could scripture alone have been the Christians all sufficient sole rule of faith and final authority for edification, resolving doctrinal differences, etc etc?

only Catholics have responded thus far

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;8482861] Hey Jon…
Jon you are the only non-catholic friend of mine that has admitted, to me anyway, that ss is a post-apostolic practice. Of course even if there was a breakdown in apostolic tradition due to the east west schism, if ss was not taught by Jesus or the apostles or their successors to the umpteen generation, I am not sure why it should be practiced, at all.
Your thought my friend?

I could ask the same question about a number of things the CC does, though honestly they are wrapped up in the related issue of Tradition and the papacy.

I am still trying to figure out how scripture alone could be considered the basis for the practice of the science of interpretation of scripture without an authoritative interpreter?

That’s why its the basis of the Church’s practice of hermeunetics.

Jon

 

[TimothyH]

Greetings, Joe, my good friend.
Truly, Joe, sola scriptura as a practice of the Church to hold teachers and teachings accountable was not a needed practice during the apostolic era, and probably not through the early councils. Perhaps one could speculate that the breakdown of Tradition approaching and following the Great Schism led to the need for a reliable norm, at least until such time as the Church could again find unity in Tradition.

Just a speculation on my part.

Jon

“Led to the need for a reliable norm” sounds suspiciously like developement of doctrine to me.

-Tim-

 

[JonNC]

only Catholics have responded thus far

:tiphat:

 

[joe370]

JonNC;8483033]I could ask the same question about a number of things the CC does, though honestly they are wrapped up in the related issue of Tradition and the papacy.

Exactly. If the CC, as do all of the protestant churches, based their beliefs on sola scriptura then I don’t know how the CC would answer that question either.

That’s why its the basis of the Church’s practice of hermeunetics.

When it comes to the science of interpretation of scripture (interpreting the bible) - scripture alone is the basis of the Church’s practice that holds teachers, teachings, and doctrine accountable.

OK. Science itself, regardless of the branch, as you know, simply means, dealing with facts and truths systematically. Hermeneutics (“the science of interpretation of scripture”) - cannot resolve doctrinal differences without human discernment, and the practice of sola scriptura makes each and every sola scriptura proponent the scientist behind the science of interpretation - correct?

 

[joe370]

“Led to the need for a reliable norm” sounds suspiciously like developement of doctrine to me.

-Tim-

Exactly. I am told by almost every sola scriptura proponent that catholic doctrinal development has done nothing more than add man-made tradition, unnecessarily, to the “pure word of God,” and yet SS, as a 16th century man-made tradition (since it’s found nowhere in the bible) - has added to the “pure word of God”, unnecessarily, to the point of fracturing Christianity, sadly, to the point of disrepair.

 

[Nicea325]

Greetings, Nicea.

You won’t read it because it isn’t there. You can read implications of scripture being “a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path”, and others. The fact is undeniable that ss is a post-apostolic practice of the Church, and ISTM is it is rooted in the breakdown of Tradition. As such, it certainly can’t be considered a doctrine that binds the conscience. It is, however, a basis for the practice of hermeunetics for the Church, to hold teachers, teachings, and doctrine accountable.

Jon

Blessings my friend. Indeed scripture is a source for hermeunetics for the church to one accountable;however,it is not the only source.

 

[JonNC]

Hi Joe,

=joe370;8483194]
When it comes to the science of interpretation of scripture (interpreting the bible) - scripture alone is the basis of the Church’s practice that holds teachers, teachings, and doctrine accountable.

Correct.

OK. Science itself, regardless of the branch, as you know, simply means, dealing with facts and truths systematically. Hermeneutics (“the science of interpretation of scripture”) - cannot resolve doctrinal differences without human discernment, and the practice of sola scriptura makes each and every sola scriptura proponent the scientist behind the science of interpretation - correct?

No the way I understand it. That’s why I said that the Church’s proper role is hermeunetics, not the individual. Regardless of what I think or interpret, to be Lutheran I must confess the Augsburg Confession, etc. So, sola scriptura is a practice of the Church. Lutherans, no more than Catholics, can go off willy nilly claiming that their own interpretation is right, when it conflicts with Lutheran (or for Catholics, Catholic) doctrine.

Jon