Many protestants will readily admit that sola scriptura was not practiced in the first century. But there are still some protestants who argue that Jesus practiced sola scriptura. Their argument looks something like: Jesus never appealed to any other authority except for scripture.
How could Jesus practice sola scriptura while acknowledging that the Old Testament was not all that there is to the word of God?
Did Jesus give ultimate authority to anything else besides the Scripture? Did He consider anything else to be the Word of God like the teachings of the Jewish leadership? Did He consider their traditions to be equal with the Scripture?
ReplyDeleteSola scriptura defined as "scripture is the sole infallible authority in matters of faith and morals". What that means is that the written medium itself is the ONLY infallible authority. By default that automatically excludes any other medium as an infallible authority, including any new revelation that Jesus brought forth orally. You would need to explain how Jesus regarded written medium as the sole infallible authority without excluding oral medium, i.e., his own oral teaching. Basically you reduce Jesus to being a fallible interpreter how could he be infallible if scripture is the ONLY infallible authority?
ReplyDeleteSola Scriptura is grounded on the nature of Scripture being inspired-inerrant. This would include the 2 ways Scripture has been communicated: one orally such as the oral teachings of Christ when He taught them and the other would be the written Scripture.
ReplyDeleteWhen Christ taught orally, that teaching was inspired-inerrant because He spoke the word of God. Both the written OT and the oral teachings of Christ when He was here in the flesh would be inspired-inerrant.
Jesus did consider the OT to be Scripture and thereby inspired-inerrant. Jesus was the only infallible interpreter of the Scripture.
Jesus did not consider the traditions of the Jewish leadership to be inspired-inerrant word of God.
=====
DeleteSola Scriptura is grounded on the nature of Scripture being inspired-inerrant.
=====
And the apostles oral tradition is grounded on being inspired-inerrant.
=====
This would include the 2 ways Scripture has been communicated: one orally such as the oral teachings of Christ when He taught them and the other would be the written Scripture.
=====
I think you have the cart before the horse here. Scripture is not communicated orally and in writing. The word of God is communicated orally and then in writing. When it is in oral form it is still inspired but it is not scripture. Once it is written down, then it can be classified as scripture. Till then no go.
=====
When Christ taught orally, that teaching was inspired-inerrant because He spoke the word of God. Both the written OT and the oral teachings of Christ when He was here in the flesh would be inspired-inerrant.
=====
The word of God has final authority. I think this case can be made from scripture. But what cannot be made from scripture is that something is only to be considered the word of God when it is written down. The word of God, when made manifest on earth, did not originate in written form and in some cases was transmitted orally for many years before being written down. Noah for example could not say, 'I am not bound to that Oral tradition coming from Adam because it is not written down' no, Noah was bound to the oral tradition even though there was no scripture to vouch for it.
The jews, while in egypt, before Moses came on the scene, were obligated to obey the word of God even though NO SCRIPTURE had yet been written. They were bound to the word of God. But how?
====
Jesus did consider the OT to be Scripture and thereby inspired-inerrant. Jesus was the only infallible interpreter of the Scripture.
====
What about the apostles? Or did their teachings ONLY BECOME infallible when they wrote them down?
It is not necessarily true that "The word of God is communicated orally and then in writing." The letters of the NT for example were written without any oral proclamation first. The prison epistles—Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon—are so named because they were written by the apostle Paul during his incarceration in Rome.
Deletehttp://www.gotquestions.org/prison-epistles.html#ixzz2RzFvObJN
The word of God in the OT was not always spoken of first. There is no reason to think that all the Psalms of David were first spoken and then written down.
When the apostles were alive there are only specific times when they spoke and wrote infallibly. Paul's advice on marriage in I Cor 7:25 is an example when Paul was not speaking infallibly.
====
DeleteIt is not necessarily true that "The word of God is communicated orally and then in writing." The letters of the NT for example were written without any oral proclamation first.
====
The only way you can maintain that view is if you believe that the apostles only taught their message when writing it down. But the scripture is clear that they were teaching their tradition many years before the new testament was written and certainly many years before it was completed. Proof: The book of acts shows us that the apostles were preaching their oral traditions on the day of pentecost.
====
The word of God in the OT was not always spoken of first. There is no reason to think that all the Psalms of David were first spoken and then written down.
====
I suppose that could be true, but even then if the word of God was communicated orally even one time it simply nullifies any ground that you think you have obtained by this point.
====
When the apostles were alive there are only specific times when they spoke and wrote infallibly. Paul's advice on marriage in I Cor 7:25 is an example when Paul was not speaking infallibly.
====
That is an interesting point. But how is it relevant? The fact is the apostle Paul taught many years before even writing an epistle.
At the time of the prophets, Christ and the apostles there was the oral inspired-inerrant word of God. Once they are no longer on the scene then we are left only with the written word. Their oral teachings of the word of God carried the full weight of being inspired-inerrant when they spoke it. That is no longer true today since we do not have access to their oral teachings. All we have are the written Scriptures.
ReplyDeleteThe oral teaching of the inspired-inerrant word of God that was done by the prophets, Christ and the apostles does not negate sola scriptura since the written word of God and the oral word of God are both inspired-inerrant.
My point with Paul's advice on marriage would not be an infallible teaching on it.
As I pointed out in my other post, your statement just highlights "The Irony of Sola Scriptura".
DeleteIt appears that I am required to prove our beliefs from scripture. If I show you from scripture that our belief of regarding tradition as having equal authority with scripture, I am told "That is no longer true today". But when I ask you to show from scripture sola scriptura, I am told essentially that you don't have to.
So it would appear that as a catholic, I am required to prove everything from scripture but not permitted to prove my view of authority from scripture where as you, because of your requirement, should prove even your authority from scripture, but you deny that you are required to.
====
The oral teaching of the inspired-inerrant word of God that was done by the prophets, Christ and the apostles does not negate sola scriptura since the written word of God and the oral word of God are both inspired-inerrant.
====
If they were have to taught sola scriptura it would have been a contradiction.
I realize that you keep arguing after the fact, saying, "today" sola scriptura is true. But key idea of sola scriptura is that nothing is binding on the conscience of a christian unless it can be found in scripture. If the apostles did not teach sola scriptura, then how can that doctrine, by that principle, be binding on your conscience. It seems to me that you are perfectly free to add tradition to scripture, since there is nothing that can bind you to sola scriptura.
====
My point with Paul's advice on marriage would not be an infallible teaching on it.
====
I realize your point. What you are getting at is that the RECORD of Paul's words are infallible but his specific statement was not.
It would also follow that not everything that an apostle wrote was infallible as well am I right?
I never said you have to prove everything from scripture. I know that cannot be done by many doctrines of your church.
DeleteIt is true that the only thing that binds the Christian are teachings found in Scripture. During the time of Christ and apostles, Christians would have also been bound by their oral teachings. That is not true today since we don't know what these oral teachings were. All have are the written Scripture.
Not all that the apostles wrote would be applicable today. All their teachings on theology would be infallible.
=======
DeleteI never said you have to prove everything from scripture. I know that cannot be done by many doctrines of your church.
=======
That one works both ways. The problem is, getting protestants to recognize that fact.
=======
It is true that the only thing that binds the Christian are teachings found in Scripture. During the time of Christ and apostles, Christians would have also been bound by their oral teachings. That is not true today since we don't know what these oral teachings were. All have are the written Scripture.
=======
I think you pretty much have already said that and I have already replied to it.
I believe acts 15 is a strong argument for an ongoing infallible church.
====
Not all that the apostles wrote would be applicable today. All their teachings on theology would be infallible.
====
Does the idea that an apostle was ALWAYS infallible when teaching theology extend to their oral teaching?
How is "acts 15 is a strong argument for an ongoing infallible church"?
ReplyDeleteDon't know if it would extend to all of their oral teachings. We don't know what their oral teachings were.
====
DeleteHow is "acts 15 is a strong argument for an ongoing infallible church"?
====
That fact that the elders were incorporated into the decision of the counsel and the fact that the Holy Spirit essentially agreed with it.
What I take away from this is a) The authority of the church was to continue to resolve issues this way. b) The Holy Spirit would continue to play the same role in regard to the decision.
====
Don't know if it would extend to all of their oral teachings. We don't know what their oral teachings were.
====
Let me put it a different way: Do you think that every time Paul spoke in front of people on the matter of theology that what he spoke was infallible simply because he was teaching theology?