Were first-century Christians Sola Scriptura?

[Constantine the Sinner]

How could they be when even after all of the NT canon was finished, toward the end of the first century, most likely no single church had copies of every book in it? Also no church would know which writings weren't canon, since there were probably a ton of epistles going around, and there is not record of an epistle listing all the books of the New Testament and saying, "This is all you need."

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

No, the first century Church was not sola scriptura.
In fact, Sola Scriptura fails its own test as the Bible never says all right doctrine must be based solely on it, so Sola Scriptura would be forced to reject the doctrine itself as unscriptural.
Sola Scriptura bases itself anyway on the Church Tradition of which books are canon and which aren't, which was only fixed much later.

However, the problem is that people are always trying to change or fit Christianity to their moulds, like Mormons or Jehovah's witnesses or whichever.
So if you base your beliefs on the only largely unchanged teachings we have of the earliest Church and Apostles, ie the Biblical Canon, it is likely you'll stay at least close to their doctrines. Tradition alone can veer far off course like various heretical groups, gnostics etc. clearly attest.

Besides, Sola Scriptura doesn't reject Church Tradition, it just holds that if Church tradition and Scripture seem to conflict, to trust Scripture on the point.

 

[Geralt]

sola scriptura is not about the availability of books. you should know better than that. it is about foremost authority. and like the 2nd post in your thread, it does NOT disregard tradition but rather qualifies it. it is the recognition that GOD's written revelation of himself and his will in scripture (the OT and alter both the OT and the NT) qualifies and vindicates all other claims of authority, revelation and other man-made what-have-you's.

the basis of this very important belief is the opinion of our Lord himself with regards to scripture.

and contrary to the second post, YES the apostles (and in this regard the early church whom they have founded) do recognize the primal authority of scripture.​

How could they be when even after all of the NT canon was finished, toward the end of the first century, most likely no single church had copies of every book in it? Also no church would know which writings weren't canon, since there were probably a ton of epistles going around, and there is not record of an epistle listing all the books of the New Testament and saying, "This is all you need."

 

[JoeP222w]

Yes.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

and contrary to the second post, YES the apostles (and in this regard the early church whom they have founded) do recognize the primal authority of scripture.​

This is for the Old Testament. The Apostles did not recognise the New Testament as such, as it did not in fact exist as of yet and the old testament was still debatable ie Septuagint vs Masoretic text. This is what I meant.

While they acknowledged scriptural authority, I do not know of a verse which supports scripture above tradition as such. Perhaps you know of one?

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

and contrary to the second post, YES the apostles (and in this regard the early church whom they have founded) do recognize the primal authority of scripture.

That's Prima Scriptura not Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is the position that Scripture alone suffices, Prima Scriptura is the position that Scripture has primacy.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

This is for the Old Testament. The Apostles did not recognise the New Testament as such, as it did not in fact exist as of yet and the old testament was still debatable ie Septuagint vs Masoretic text. This is what I meant.

While they acknowledged scriptural authority, I do not know of a verse which supports scripture above tradition as such. Perhaps you know of one?

The Apostles interpreted Scripture through tradition. "Holy Tradition", in churchspeak, just means Christ's teachings, it's mainly what is covered by the NT. There are other kinds of tradition, but only Holy Tradition is a source of doctrine.

We know that Paul subscribed the Oral Torah, because he said women must be silent in church as the Law says, which is part of the Oral Torah, but was not in the written Torah. The only Jews who rejected tradition where the Sadducees.

 

[Albion]

The Apostles interpreted Scripture through tradition. "Holy Tradition", in churchspeak,...

The fact of the matter is that the early Church Fathers cited Scripture alone--as did the Nicene Creed itself--and there is no support for the theory called "Holy Tradition."

 

[Albion]

That's Prima Scriptura not Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is the position that Scripture alone suffices, Prima Scriptura is the position that Scripture has primacy.

Of course there is no place in Scripture that something called "Prima Scriptura" is described as you have.

 

[Geralt]

you know what i meant, i gave details and yet you zeroed in on the word and made your own conclusions. "qualifies and vindicates all other claims of authority", there are not other separate authority, all are derived authority from the words written in scripture (or simply saying scripture).

That's Prima Scriptura not Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is the position that Scripture alone suffices, Prima Scriptura is the position that Scripture has primacy.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

The fact of the matter is that the early Church Fathers cited Scripture alone--as did the Nicene Creed itself--and there is no support for the theory called "Holy Tradition."

The Apostles didn't have Christ's teachings written down to consult, their only other option was Holy Tradition. We're talking about the First-Century Church.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Of course there is no place in Scripture that something called "Prima Scriptura" is described as you have.

So you're saying Prima Scriptura fails the Sola Scriptura criterion?

 

[Albion]

So you're saying Prima Scriptura fails the Sola Scriptura criterion?

I'm saying that "Prima Scriptura" is an invention.

 

[Albion]

The Apostles didn't have Christ's teachings written down to consult, their only other option was Holy Tradition. We're talking about the First-Century Church.

I am talking about the first century church. That stuff about the Apostles relying solely upon some undefined "traditions" or "tradition" for doctrine is speculative, and they certainly did have most of the books of the New Testament in the first century. But aside from that, you cannot just switch back and forth from "tradition" to "Holy Tradition" as though the two are the same.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

I'm saying that "Prima Scriptura" is an invention.

It's a description.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

I am talking about the first century church. That stuff about the Apostles relying solely upon some undefined "traditions" or "tradition" for doctrine is speculative, and they certainly did have most of the books of the New Testament in the first century. But aside from that, you cannot just switch back and forth from "tradition" to "Holy Tradition" as though the two are the same.

No, it's not speculative, it's fact. The Apostles had to rely on Tradition for Christ's teachings, since most of the New Testament wasn't yet written, let alone assembled into one volume, until decades after Christ's ministry. All canonical books were finished before the close of the First-Century, but not by much, and they weren't all compiled together as a single source, it's very unlikely any single church had access to them all.

Holy Tradition is a special kind of tradition. Church tradition in general does not have any dogmatic force in and of itself, only Holy Tradition does. The validity of general Church tradition is judged by how well it expresses Holy Tradition, and it is to be changed accordingly.

 

[Albion]

It's a description.

Very well, where in Scripture do we find what you're describing?

 

[Albion]

No, it's not speculative, it's fact.

No, it's not fact.

The Apostles had to rely on Tradition for Christ's teachings, since most of the New Testament wasn't yet written, let alone assembled into one volume, until decades after Christ's ministry.

They relied upon the books and letters as well as what Christ had taught them. The idea that they taught something that is not to be found in the Bibles we have today, and which is of equal veracity and inspired, is a fiction.

Holy Tradition is a special kind of tradition.

Holy Tradition is a theory that has no Scriptural basis.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Very well, where in Scripture do we find what you're describing?

It's not in Scripture, neither does it have to be unless you subscribe to Sola Scriptura.

They relied upon the books and letters as well as what Christ had taught them.

What books and letters did the Apostles rely on?

The idea that they taught something that is not to be found in the Bibles we have today, and which is of equal veracity and inspired, is a fiction.

Do you have any support that the New Testament is a comprehensive account of every single teaching Christ passed on during his ministry of several years? Do you think, for instance, Christ never taught his Apostles how to council people or help those struggling with sin?

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

No, it's not fact.

No, it's fact. Since the Apostles, along with others, wrote the New Testament, and had the teachings prior, they must have had a period where they didn't have the New Testament to rely upon.

Holy Tradition is a theory that has no Scriptural basis.

2 Thessalonians 2:15.

Ironically, it has more of a Scriptural basis than Sola Scriptura