Were first-century Christians Sola Scriptura?

[Norbert L]

Here are 4 texts that challenge the claim that the NT authors believed in our NT canon as Sola Scriptura:

(1) Jude 14-15 quotes 1 Enoch as a prophetically inspired book: "And behold! He comes with ten thousands of His holy ones to execute judgment upon all (1 Enoch1:9)."
"And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his saints to execute judgment upon all...(Jude 14)."

(2) Jude 9 reads: "But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you!’”

The truth of this claim depends on the supposed supernatural revelation of the Assumption of Moses, of which only excerpts survive, but the respected early church fathers, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Didymus of Alexandria all agree that Jude is referring to the apocryphal Assumption of Moses.

(3) Origen identifies the lost Apocalypse of Elijah as the source of the beloved promise in 1 Corinthians 2:9, "As it is written, eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither has any human heart conceived the things that God has prepared for those who love Him." The authoritative introduction, "As it is written," is the standard NT way of introducing biblical citations.

(4) In Moses' contest with Egyptian magicians in Exodus 7:10-12, the Egyptian magicians are not named. But Origen finds the allusion to Jannes and Jambres in 2 Timothy 3:8 in the apocryphal Book of Jannes and Jambres, which was apparently known at Qumran. An Ethiopic translation survives, though the Book of Jannes and Jambres was originally written in Greek and Greek fragments of it are present in Chester Beatty Papyrus XLV.

Paul quotes pagan sources in Acts 17:28 as being true, so by the same line of reasoning Paul doesn't believe they are Sola Scriptura either.

What people should challenge themselves with is the question of, just because scripture mentions a book, does that mean the book is inspired by God?

 

[Norbert L]

But much of the NT is authored by Paul, who didn't witness Christ's ministry.

Here's what Paul says about himself, "From Paul, an apostle (not from men, nor by human agency, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead)" NET Bible Gal 1:1
He was chosen by Jesus Christ, who of any one who ever lived as a flesh and blood man, would be the first of all witnesses to His ministry.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

The Bible set in order all those things that were being discussed, promulgated, promoted, observed, demanded, exaggerated, imagined...... all those products of intellect, rumor, magnification, and personal glorification examined and subsequently accurately presented in One Book, itself. It is in and of itself THE sole Spiritual context, from Genesis 1 through Revelation 22.

The OT explored and revealed the struggle that God had with humanity, even after He selected the Chosen People, those called Hebrews, and in other terminology, Jews. The NT explores and reveals the introduction of Jesus, that Most Holy One called to explain and define the Old, appealing to God's Chosen to receive Him in the Grace promised in the Abrahamic Covenant. Some did, most did not, due to the blasphemy of their leadership. At the Cross Jesus closed the books on the ritualistic, paying the price for ALL who would believe, minus the impossible criteria of the Law. At the Cross Jesus set in motion the calling of the evil Pharisee, Saul, providing Grace through Faith through his ministry as Paul. Paul, in Romans 10:8-13, laid the foundation of Grace for everyone, Jew, non-Jew. Romans 8:1, among numerous other scriptures, reveals the Truth that confession of Jesus as Savior is solid, permanent, impossible to undo.

Where does that leave all the probabilities promoted by "tradition" or "holy tradition," which in fact conflict with Scripture? Denominations. Belief "systems." Organized religion. Christianity is none of those. It is THE one-to-one relationship with our Savior, Jesus, the GIFT of God. Those who walk in that Truth are saved for eternity. Here is a comment made in this thread that is utterly in error:

"For example, Church Tradition says baptism saves, regenerates believers and is necessary for salvation. All Christians everywhere have believed that Tradition from the beginning. Yet sola scriptura says you can reject that Christian teaching if it doesn't agree with your own personal interpretation of scripture."

No authentically Spiritually birthed Believer in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord will EVER lean to his or her own understanding. Scripture is God-breathed, interpreted and applied by the Holy Spirit and none other. Faith comes by hearing the Holy Spirit, and hearing by the Word of God. Period.

It has been a tradition in our entire family to attempt to assemble at some point during the Christmas season. Does that make it a required observance? Do we have to assemble on a date certain? What about those who can't attend? When we sit around discussing Christmas past do our discussions have to be flawless? Do we have to recall everything that happened even during the season last year? Dare we pass along everything that happened as truth?

"John sure drove a beautiful Chevy this time." "No, it was a Ford." "The color was blue." "No, it was gray." "Maybe it was the year before he drove the Chevy." "Nope. He traded in a Dodge." "I remember the first car Mom and Dad owned..... a Chrysler." "Actually, I clearly remember it was a Pontiac." "We've got photos of them with the Chrysler!" "Impossible."

Try writing a family diary.

Sola Scriptura. Don't venture outside the Word.

"Non-Denom" Christianity is just Baptist, though. The theology is identical.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Here's what Paul says about himself, "From Paul, an apostle (not from men, nor by human agency, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead)" NET Bible Gal 1:1
He was chosen by Jesus Christ, who of any one who ever lived as a flesh and blood man, would be the first of all witnesses to His ministry.

He was chosen by Christ, but he didn't witness his ministry, that is he wasn't a first-hand observer of Christ's preaching, his Crucifixion, or His Resurrection. His office was not above that of regular bishops.

 

[Albion]

But much of the NT is authored by Paul, who didn't witness Christ's ministry.

Norbert's right that this comment ^ makes sense only if the speaker thinks that some of the books of the Bible are not actually God's word. Most often that kind of observation is aimed at Paul by people who want to think that he was just offering a personal and not especially informed opinion of things in his epistles. I hope that you weren't angling in that direction yourself by saying that Paul didn't witness Christ's ministry. It really doesn't matter if he did or didn't.

 

[Albion]

"Non-Denom" Christianity is just Baptist, though. The theology is identical.

For many of them, yes. However, that's not something that can be said categorically. There are plenty of non-denominational churches that are not identical to the Baptist churches.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Norbert's right that this comment ^ makes sense only if the speaker thinks that some of the books of the Bible are not actually God's word. Most often that kind of observation is aimed at Paul by people who want to think that he was just offering a personal and not especially informed opinion of things in his epistles. I hope that you weren't angling in that direction yourself by saying that Paul didn't witness Christ's ministry. It really doesn't matter if he did or didn't.

I think he was teaching Holy Tradition.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

For many of them, yes. However, that's not something that can be said categorically. There are plenty of non-denominational churches that are not identical to the Baptist churches.

Such as?

 

[Albion]

I think he was teaching Holy Tradition.

Even if there were such a thing as "Holy Tradition," Paul's teachings couldn't be part of it. By accepting his letters as part of God's word, the church that you love and refer to so often admitted that it was revelation as opposed to some kind of consensus of the people developed over time.

 

[Albion]

Such as?

Well, because each one is autonomous, I hope you are not expecting a "one size fits all" answer. Nevertheless, while most non-denoms follow the Baptistic pattern as regards Baptism and the Lord's Supper, many disagree with the Baptists when it comes to separation of church and state and, also, when it comes to having a creed. Many of them do have a creedal statement. So those are a couple of examples.

 

[Daniel9v9]

Sola Scriptura doesn't reject all tradition - only that which origin is obscure, uncertain and conflicts with the Scriptures. Even Augustine agrees with this, on the subject of apocryphal books.

Our faith, being "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone." -recognizes the authority of the apostles. The apostles in their time taught through preaching and writings, but now we can only be sure of the writings, as spoken words passed down can easily derail and develop strange teachings and heresies. Especially being mindful of this - that for three years Paul, with tears, warned about false teaching creeping into the church.

Sola Scriptura means that all dogma should be tested against the truth as spoken through the apostles. Is there any error in this? ie, wanting to conforming to the teachings of the apostles?

If someone uphold a particular tradition which isn't offensive to Scriptures, they do so to the Lord. If someone don't do it - they too do it out of devotion to the Lord. I don't think we need any further division or sophistry on this subject.

 

[Daniel9v9]

*Sorry, just deleting my double post. Something went askew.

 

[Albion]

Sola Scriptura doesn't reject all tradition - only that which origin is obscure, uncertain and conflicts with the Scriptures. Even Augustine agrees with this, on the subject of apocryphal books.

That's tradition, but it's not Holy Tradition. I mentioned this before, but the confusion of the two is a major part of the difficulty we have when discussing this subject. Holy Tradition is the theory that a longheld opinion believed throughout the church, and from the beginning, is a second stream of divine revelation (next to the inspired word of God given directly in Scripture). You're right that most churches, Protestant as well as Catholic, find value in traditions, but not to establish doctrine and not to be considered equal to the Bible in authority.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Even if there were such a thing as "Holy Tradition," Paul's teachings couldn't be part of it. By accepting his letters as part of God's word, the church that you love and refer to so often admitted that it was revelation as opposed to some kind of consensus of the people developed over time.

Holy Tradition isn't some kind of consensus, it means Christ's teachings.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

That's tradition, but it's not Holy Tradition. I mentioned this before, but the confusion of the two is a major part of the difficulty we have when discussing this subject. Holy Tradition is the theory that a longheld opinion believed throughout the church, and from the beginning, is a second stream of divine revelation (next to the inspired word of God given directly in Scripture). You're right that most churches, Protestant as well as Catholic, find value in traditions, but not to establish doctrine and not to be considered equal to the Bible in authority.

No, that's not what Holy Tradition is at all.

Holy Tradition is the deposit of faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles and passed on in the Church from one generation to the next without addition, alteration or subtraction.
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Holy_Tradition

 

[com7fy8]

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 places in Paul's writing where he says things which are not so written in early scriptures; so I consider that he got things by direct inspiration. And in Galatians chapter one our Apostle Paul says he got things by the revelation of Jesus. Jesus personally communicated with Paul. So, he did not get everything from what had already been written, or from previously held tradition, I see from this.

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 would say there was a while when the Apostles had what Jesus had personally said to them. And then Paul was saved and began ministering. And the church, according to Acts, then clarified that salvation is not by keeping the law of Moses, but by faith in Jesus. The early church got this officially clarified after Paul became a Christian. So, this kind of thing happened while the Apostles were still on this earth. How did they get this understanding? I would say not by already generally held tradition, but by meeting and working this out . . . with unanimous agreement.

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?

John says the world could not hold all the books of what Jesus said.

Do you think, for instance, Christ never taught his Apostles how to council people or help those struggling with sin?

He did. And so much of what He said can be used . . . applied . . . to helping people in counseling and helping ones who struggle with sin.

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.

They had in their hearts what God wrote in their hearts, and from this they wrote, I consider. And I would say God inspired them to write what matches with all He had already written in their hearts and their personal experience of God. But now there are things, in certain institutionalized religion, which do not obviously match with scripture. And all which God shares is not getting as much attention as the institutionalized religious things. The scriptures give us so much more and better than what I am hearing and reading from apparently institutionalized self-justifying people.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

There are places in Paul's writing where he says things which are not so written in early scriptures; so I consider that he got things by direct inspiration. And in Galatians chapter one our Apostle Paul says he got things by the revelation of Jesus. Jesus personally communicated with Paul. So, he did not get everything from what had already been written, or from previously held tradition, I see from this.

I would say there was a while when the Apostles had what Jesus had personally said to them. And then Paul was saved and began ministering. And the church, according to Acts, then clarified that salvation is not by keeping the law of Moses, but by faith in Jesus. The early church got this officially clarified after Paul became a Christian. So, this kind of thing happened while the Apostles were still on this earth. How did they get this understanding? I would say not by already generally held tradition, but by meeting and working this out . . . with unanimous agreement.

John says the world could not hold all the books of what Jesus said. He did. And so much of what He said can be used . . . applied . . . to helping people in counseling and helping ones who struggle with sin.

They had in their hearts what God wrote in their hearts, and from this they wrote, I consider. And I would say God inspired them to write what matches with all He had already written in their hearts and their personal experience of God. But now there are things, in certain institutionalized religion, which do not obviously match with scripture. And all which God shares is not getting as much attention as the institutionalized religious things. The scriptures give us so much more and better than what I am hearing and reading from apparently institutionalized self-justifying people.

In the Gospel of Mark, it says Christ made all foods clean.

 

[The Hammer of Witches]

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."

They were prima-scriptura as far as I can tell. We must be skeptical about anything not in the Bible.

 

[stuart lawrence]

First century christians lived a life of simple faith and a total reliance on the holy spirit. That is true first century christianity

 

[Geralt]

now this really is dumb. what relevance are 'written teachings' when the apostles were directly, verbally, and personally taught by Jesus himself ? nothing holy about tradition, it is a non-entity, nor sentient.

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.