Were first-century Christians Sola Scriptura?

[Constantine the Sinner]

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.

Holy Tradition means "Christ's teachings", including those not written down. Scripture means "Christ's teachings," excluding those not written down.

 

[Geralt]

if its not written down and claimed to be words of christ, you'll have a 100%$ chance it came from someone else's imagination. a loophole for all the stuff that makes man mad.

Holy Tradition means "Christ's teachings", including those not written down. Scripture means "Christ's teachings," excluding those not written down.

 

[Propianotuner]

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?

The Tanakh already existed. Neither does one need to possess all of the canonical scriptures in order to recognize Holy Writ as being more than human literature or oral traditions.

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."

While all of the books weren't individually enumerated, categories of books were recognized as theopnustos/God-breathed: the Tanakh, the Gospels, and apostolic Epistles were all used for public reading.

There is a highly illogical double standard at play here. People who believe in Sola Ekklesia expect some sort of exhaustive support for Sola Scriptura in the 1st century Church in spite of it not existing either in favor of their ideas.

I've brought up the general debate over the canon and why Jerome ended up labeling certain books as apocryphal in the Vulgate. Also I have demonstrated examples of bishops whose teachings we all consider soundly Orthodox who propagated plainly mistaken traditions (e.g. Irenaeus thinking the Lord was crucified at an advanced age), casting very reasonable doubt on the ability of the Church in the first place to preserve extra-biblical traditions in spite of cultural syncretism. As of yet I've received answers on neither account.

Can our interlocutors here, who have such high standards for Sola Scriptura to meet, show us the continuity of thought they are claiming?

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.

Scripture teaches it's sufficiency (2 Timothy 3:14-17) and that we are to test spirits and right doctrine by it's acknowledgement of the Son, it's relationship with the Holy Spirit, and finally harmony with Scripture (Psalms 19:7, 1 John 4:1-6, 1 Thessalonians 5:21, 2 Peter 1:20-21, 2 Peter 3:15-16, Psalms 12:6, and Colossians 1:23-29). The Scriptures appear to be quite outspoken about their value.

Jesus points to three primary witnesses: His Father, His works, and Messianic prophecies. Where are the Father and where are Jesus' miracles? Well, we can't perceive those but we can read the prophets.

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.

The Masoretic text didn't exist in the 1st century. At that time they kept scrolls of the OT in Paleo-Hebrew, which had different alphabetical symbols than Masoretic script and no vowel symbols. People make a mountain out of a molehill with the fact that in NT times there was the Septuagint, a proto-Masoretic text, and a proto-Peshitta (Syriac version of the OT) text in circulation because the text differences weren't a fraction as prevalent and frequent as folks tend to presume.

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.

The whole idea of Reformers having actually taught Sola instead of Prima is unrepresentative and an anachronism, as it is a hyperbole of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura as conceptually used by the very people who came up with the five Solas did not view Scripture alone as profitable literature. It was strictly considered sufficient in the sense of 2 Timothy 3:14-17.

A source being sufficient doesn't make it comprehensive. God being an infinite being, any comprehensive account of Him is impossible in the first place.

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.

The NT displays several examples of preexisting creedal formulas and liturgical texts. See 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, 1 Timothy 3:16, 1 Timothy 2:5-6, 1 Corinthians 8:6, and Philippians 2:5-11.

The Nicene Creed itself was closely adapted from the Rule of Faith presented by Irenaeus in Against Heresies. It can be seen here in chapter 10. He had pretty much just finished establishing all of it in the Scriptures, resoundingly refuting Gnosticism and Marcionism almost solely through recourse to the Scriptures. He presents the Rule of Faith in the formula of a creed, directly implying it was in liturgical use already, as liturgical use was the standard memorization device for all such material.

 

[Propianotuner]

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

The underlined has yet to be demonstrated anywhere here.

 

[Peter Johnson]

Holy Tradition means "Christ's teachings", including those not written down.

= Totally subjective, and Lord spare me from being led astray by the inventions of man.

Scripture means "Christ's teachings," excluding those not written down.

= Totally objective, and thank you Lord for your perfect Word that converts the soul.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

= Totally subjective, and Lord spare me from being led astray by the inventions of man.

= Totally objective, and thank you Lord for your perfect Word that converts the soul.

The OP mentioned on the first page, Prima Scriptura. As a confessional Lutheran, I would say that this is exactly how we employ what is called "Sola Scriptura".

If doctrine or practice is endorsed by the Bible, great! If a "traditional" belief or practice is not in the Bible, but neither conflicts with Scripture, nor is forbidden by Scripture, then it is OK too, and we would call them Adiaphora, which means things of indifference. Adiaphora may be held and practiced as "Pious Opinion".

So, first Cent. Christians would not be Sola Scriptura as defined by either the "radical reformers" or modern evangelical Protestantism.

 

[Dave-W]

Were first-century Christians Sola Scriptura?

Of course not. They were Jews and interpreted EVERYTHING from their understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures, including what Paul called in Acts 28 "the customs of the fathers." i.e. - the rabbinic oral tradition.

 

[Dave-W]

Holy Tradition means "Christ's teachings", including those not written down.

That tradition itself is Jewish - No different than the "oral torah" supposedly given on Sinai to Moses; but was told to NOT write down, but pass it on by word of mouth.

 

[Norbert L]

His office was not above that of regular bishops.

Such an idea is stating that the apostle Paul was at best extremely exaggerating and at worst lying about his office in Galatians 1:1 His authority was given to him by Jesus Christ, not by other men, of which we only have the latter today. Men as Paul goes on to explain, given to "desiring to be teachers of the law [nowadays NT], without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions." Galatians 1:7

 

[FaithfulPilgrim]

The Tanakh already existed. Neither does one need to possess all of the canonical scriptures in order to recognize Holy Writ as being more than human literature or oral traditions.



While all of the books weren't individually enumerated, categories of books were recognized as theopnustos/God-breathed: the Tanakh, the Gospels, and apostolic Epistles were all used for public reading.

There is a highly illogical double standard at play here. People who believe in Sola Ekklesia expect some sort of exhaustive support for Sola Scriptura in the 1st century Church in spite of it not existing either in favor of their ideas.

I've brought up the general debate over the canon and why Jerome ended up labeling certain books as apocryphal in the Vulgate. Also I have demonstrated examples of bishops whose teachings we all consider soundly Orthodox who propagated plainly mistaken traditions (e.g. Irenaeus thinking the Lord was crucified at an advanced age), casting very reasonable doubt on the ability of the Church in the first place to preserve extra-biblical traditions in spite of cultural syncretism. As of yet I've received answers on neither account.

Can our interlocutors here, who have such high standards for Sola Scriptura to meet, show us the continuity of thought they are claiming?



Scripture teaches it's sufficiency (2 Timothy 3:14-17) and that we are to test spirits and right doctrine by it's acknowledgement of the Son, it's relationship with the Holy Spirit, and finally harmony with Scripture (Psalms 19:7, 1 John 4:1-6, 1 Thessalonians 5:21, 2 Peter 1:20-21, 2 Peter 3:15-16, Psalms 12:6, and Colossians 1:23-29). The Scriptures appear to be quite outspoken about their value.

Jesus points to three primary witnesses: His Father, His works, and Messianic prophecies. Where are the Father and where are Jesus' miracles? Well, we can't perceive those but we can read the prophets.



The Masoretic text didn't exist in the 1st century. At that time they kept scrolls of the OT in Paleo-Hebrew, which had different alphabetical symbols than Masoretic script and no vowel symbols. People make a mountain out of a molehill with the fact that in NT times there was the Septuagint, a proto-Masoretic text, and a proto-Peshitta (Syriac version of the OT) text in circulation because the text differences weren't a fraction as prevalent and frequent as folks tend to presume.



The whole idea of Reformers having actually taught Sola instead of Prima is unrepresentative and an anachronism, as it is a hyperbole of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura as conceptually used by the very people who came up with the five Solas did not view Scripture alone as profitable literature. It was strictly considered sufficient in the sense of 2 Timothy 3:14-17.

A source being sufficient doesn't make it comprehensive. God being an infinite being, any comprehensive account of Him is impossible in the first place.



The NT displays several examples of preexisting creedal formulas and liturgical texts. See 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, 1 Timothy 3:16, 1 Timothy 2:5-6, 1 Corinthians 8:6, and Philippians 2:5-11.

The Nicene Creed itself was closely adapted from the Rule of Faith presented by Irenaeus in Against Heresies. It can be seen here in chapter 10. He had pretty much just finished establishing all of it in the Scriptures, resoundingly refuting Gnosticism and Marcionism almost solely through recourse to the Scriptures. He presents the Rule of Faith in the formula of a creed, directly implying it was in liturgical use already, as liturgical use was the standard memorization device for all such material.

So the Reformers actually taught something more akin to prima scriptura than sola scriptura?

I have my suspicions as the Protestant view of tradition being subservient to Scripture sounds more like prima scriptura to me than sola scriptura.

 

[dqhall]

After Jesus ascended, Peter and John were going to the temple in Jerusalem in the afternoon:

Acts 3 World English Bible:

'Peter and John were going up into the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour. 2 A certain man who was lame from his mother’s womb was being carried, whom they laid daily at the door of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask gifts for the needy of those who entered into the temple. 3 Seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple, he asked to receive gifts for the needy. 4 Peter, fastening his eyes on him, with John, said, “Look at us.” 5 He listened to them, expecting to receive something from them. 6 But Peter said, “Silver and gold have I none, but what I have, that I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, get up and walk!” 7 He took him by the right hand, and raised him up. Immediately his feet and his ankle bones received strength. 8 Leaping up, he stood, and began to walk. He entered with them into the temple, walking, leaping, and praising God. 9 All the people saw him walking and praising God. 10 They recognized him, that it was he who used to sit begging for gifts for the needy at the Beautiful Gate of the temple. They were filled with wonder and amazement at what had happened to him.'

This healing was done by the Holy Spirit. The New Testament had not been written, but the living word was at work. Scriptures alone cannot save. One needs the indwelling of God's spirit. Some can rightly sort the better from the worse of scripture; some cannot.

 

[Albion]

This healing was done by the Holy Spirit. The New Testament had not been written, but the living word was at work. Scriptures alone cannot save.

Whoa! Sola Scriptura does not save, but no one has said that it does. It's the Christian church's ultimate determiner of DOCTRINE, to the exclusion of superstition, custom, theological speculation, and so on.

One needs the indwelling of God's spirit.

Very well, and I'll bet that you say this--that you know this to be true--because of your familiarity with Holy Scripture, right?

 

[Wolf_Says]

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."

No they were not, and Sola Scriptura is an unbilbical heretical idea that has festered now for the last 500 years after the protestant reformation.

SS claims that Scripture alone, and that everybody has their own authority in interpreting the Bible. Hence why in terms of protestants, there are now about 40,000 different denominations throughout the world. All claiming to only follow the Bible, and then disagree on many different major issues.

 

[Albion]

No they were not, and Sola Scriptura is an unbilbical heretical idea that has festered now for the last 500 years after the protestant reformation.

You've just got to start reading something other than the handouts you were given in RCIA or school religion classes.

 

[Wolf_Says]

You've just got to start reading something other than the handouts you were given in RCIA or school religion classes.

I do, I tend to like studying history. Explain to me how I am wrong

 

[Dave-W]

I would submit that sola scriptura is a mythological beast that does not and CANNOT exist.

Words - even the words of the original autographs (if we could ever find them) - would be meaningless without a frame of reference to interpret them from.

If we do not have one, we substitute our own cultural frame of reference. (which I guarantee will be incorrect)

 

[Albion]

I do, I tend to like studying history. Explain to me how I am wrong

My friend, we've been over it many times here. You said:

No they were not, and Sola Scriptura is an unbilbical heretical idea that has festered now for the last 500 years after the protestant reformation.

and you were responding to "Constantine" who had written this:

"there is not record of an epistle listing all the books of the New Testament and saying, "This is all you need."

First, he's wrong about the New Testament. The passage (John 20:30-31) that teaches us that what is recorded in Scripture is sufficient is in the Gospels, not one of the epistles, and the "record" that he says doesn't exist is right there and was available during the Apostolic age at the time he was referring to.

As for your response, the Early Church Fathers repeatedly cited Scripture as the basis of their doctrinal statements. Even the Nicene Creed does this, so the notion that this is a recent innovation is nonsense. What's more, there is NO reference to "Holy Tradition" being cited by these men who are often held up by Catholics as the final word on anything Christian.

In addition, you said that Sola Scriptura teaches that everyone is on his own to interpret Scripture as he sees fit. That is flatly incorrect. Not only does the concept of SS not say that, but Christians who understand and agree with the concept do not think that way.

 

[Wolf_Says]

My friend, we've been over it many times here. You said:


and you were responding to "Constantine" who had written this:


First, he's wrong about the New Testament. The passage (John 20:30-31) that teaches us that what is recorded in Scripture is sufficient is in the Gospels, not one of the epistles, and the "record" that he says doesn't exist is right there and was available during the Apostolic age at the time he was referring to.

As for your response, the Early Church Fathers repeatedly cited Scripture as the basis of their doctrinal statements. Even the Nicene Creed does this, so the notion that this is a recent innovation is nonsense. What's more, there is NO reference to "Holy Tradition" being cited by these men who are often held up by Catholics as the final word on anything Christian.

Wrong, the actual concept of Sola Scriptura did not exist until the protestant reformation in the 1500s. The Church has always taught that scripture is important. However, did not teach SS.

SS as I stated believes that any man can self-interpret the Bible, and rejects all authority over anybody having a final say as to what the Bible says. I also did not state Holy Tradition in my response.

 

[Thursday]

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."

No. It was never part of Christianity until the Reformation.

 

[Albion]

Wrong, the actual concept of Sola Scriptura did not exist until the protestant reformation in the 1500s. The Church has always taught that scripture is important. However, did not teach SS.

I'm sorry, but it's the term that originated with the Reformation. The idea was Apostolic and the Reformers were merely asserting that the churches ought to go back to that standard and reject the slew of additions to the faith that came along during the Middle Ages (Purgatory, Indulgences, Transubstantiation, for example).

SS as I stated believes that any man can self-interpret the Bible

You did state it that way, but you're wrong. That's not a part of Sola Scriptura. SS means simply that Scripture is the ultimate determiner of essential doctrine to the exclusion of human speculation, custom, etc.