Christianity Lounge

[GodfatherPartTwo]

I have a question for proponents of Sola Scriptura: did the Apostles teach and practice anything in their years of evangelizing that is not contained in the Scripture we possess today?

If they did, it would be next to impossible to prove what they were.

I think people underestimate the centrality of Christ as the Son of God. We take that for granted these days, and would rather spend our time talking about tertiary issues, dogmas, traditions, whatever, but in the Apostle's day, the Gospel was the bread and butter.

When people hear words like "tradition" or "teaching", the kerygma, they import more into that than what would've been the focus of the Apostles in their own context. Keep in mind that they did not have this Platonic mindset where you rationalize your way up and stack metaphysics upon metaphysics, endlessly crafting a theology. For them, the faith was once for all delivered. Jesus is the full revelation of God and the fulfillment of the Old Testament.

 

[Northumber]

I have a question for proponents of Sola Scriptura: did the Apostles teach and practice anything in their years of evangelizing that is not contained in the Scripture we possess today?

If yes, what happened to those teachings and practices?

would rather spend our time talking about tertiary issues, dogmas, traditions, whatever, but in the Apostle's day, the Gospel was the bread and butter.

When people hear words like "tradition" or "teaching", the kerygma, they import more into that than what would've been the focus of the Apostles in their own context.

I import the idea of interpretation into the word "tradition". Tradition, to me, is the frame, or, the lens used to interpret Scripture.

I've come to the conclusion that people essentially went to Sola Scriptura because they lost trust in the interpreters - the hierarchy of the Church of Rome. Trust was lost because of their actions - lots of immortality.

The question below Sola Scriptura is: how much can I trust my own reading? Does the Holy Spirit allow you, enlighten you, by yourself, a correct lens.

 

[Iakobos]

If they did, it would be next to impossible to prove what they were.

I think people underestimate the centrality of Christ as the Son of God. We take that for granted these days, and would rather spend our time talking about tertiary issues, dogmas, traditions, whatever, but in the Apostle's day, the Gospel was the bread and butter.

When people hear words like "tradition" or "teaching", the kerygma, they import more into that than what would've been the focus of the Apostles in their own context. Keep in mind that they did not have this Platonic mindset where you rationalize your way up and stack metaphysics upon metaphysics, endlessly crafting a theology. For them, the faith was once for all delivered. Jesus is the full revelation of God and the fulfillment of the Old Testament.

Wanna try again and answer my questions this time?

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Wanna try again and answer my questions this time?

If you're asking, "Did the Apostles teach anything new or different that they did not write down in Scripture?" Then the answer is no. The Scriptures contain the fullness of the Apostolic faith.

If you're asking, "Did the Apostles say other words that aren't contained in Scripture?" then the answer is yes, and the follow up answer is that these words went unrecorded.

I've come to the conclusion that people essentially went to Sola Scriptura because they lost trust in the interpreters - the hierarchy of the Church of Rome. Trust was lost because of their actions - lots of immortality.

There's a lot of truth to this. There were also textual reasons:
https://www.1517.org/articles/the-mistranslation-that-sparked-the-reformation

The question below Sola Scriptura is: how much can I trust my own reading? Does the Holy Spirit allow you, enlighten you, by yourself, a correct lens.

I think you should make a historically informed reading, as well as a grammatically correct, hermeneutically consistent reading. But you can never dispense with the fact that you are interpreting, even if you pawn off interpretation to someone else. You are then interpreting their interpretation of the text.

 

[Iakobos]

If you're asking, "Did the Apostles teach anything new or different that they did not write down in Scripture?" Then the answer is no. The Scriptures contain the fullness of the Apostolic faith.

Cheers for the follow up

"The Scriptures contain the fullness of the Apostolic faith" - okay can you point me to the right verse that states this?

 

[Northumber]

I think you should make a historically informed reading, as well as a grammatically correct, hermeneutically consistent reading.

I'm pretty sure everyone who is earnest is trying to do what you say.

But you can never dispense with the fact that you are interpreting, even if you pawn off interpretation to someone else. You are then interpreting their interpretation of the text.

Yes, the tension remains though, because someone else's interpretation is affecting mine.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Cheers for the follow up

"The Scriptures contain the fullness of the Apostolic faith" - okay can you point me to the right verse that states this?

The standard verse for this is 2 Timothy 3:16-17: All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, having been thoroughly equipped for every good work.

The idea that Scripture is able to fully equip the man of God, make him complete, regarding teaching, reproof, and correction is especially potent.

A rebuttal to this goes, "well Paul was only talking about the Old Testament." First, that's debatable. Paul quotes the Gospel of Luke in his first letter to Timothy, and Luke is not even the first Gospel to be written. Second, this would make the argument for Scriptural sufficiency even stronger. If the Old Testament already was sufficient for these things, how much more with the New?

 

[Iakobos]

That's a cool interpretation of that verse that you got from your tradition, it doesn't say what you said though

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

That's a cool interpretation of that verse that you got from your tradition, it doesn't say what you said though

I didn't interpet anything. I just posted what the verse says.

 

[Iakobos]

I didn't interpet anything. I just posted what the verse says.

You said this:

The Scriptures contain the fullness of the Apostolic faith.

The verse you quoted said this:

2 Timothy 3:16-17: All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, having been thoroughly equipped for every good work.

The verse doesn't say what you said. That's what I meant by interpretation.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

The verse doesn't say what you said. That's what I meant by interpretation.

It doesn't say what I said in that precise formulation, but it says what it says. If the Scriptures do not contain the fullness of the Apostolic faith, then why does Paul say that they are able to make you complete and fully equipped by their teaching? Shouldn't Paul have said partially complete, partially equipped, for some good works?

 

[Iakobos]

That helps me understand your perspective, cheers