Did Jesus and the Apostles believe in Sola Scriptura?
In my recent debate with Ben Rosado, on his cross examination rebuttal statement I was told that if I could provide him with evidence that Jesus and the apostles believed in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, then he would consider reversing his beliefs that he currently holds to.
Well is there such evidence? What kind of evidence are we looking for here? Historically speaking, Jesus and the apostle’s could not have believed in the doctrine as stated in the 16th century. Why not? Because the doctrine presupposes the completed canon of Scripture! Jesus and the apostles could not have required any to believe in the stated doctrine of Sola Scriptura during their times because that would have rendered their own words lower than Scripture. Obviously that could not be possible since Jesus’ words are the very words of God and the Apostle’s spoke and wrote some things under the infallible guidance and authority of the Holy Spirit. Requiring evidence that Jesus and the apostles believed in “Sola Scriptura” would require one to presuppose that the New Testament is really not Scripture at all.
Also, it disregards the special period in redemptive history in which God spoke to His people in various ways revealing His redemption that was hidden from the ages past. There was a time when God revealed things to certain people such as the prophets and the apostles. Such was the foundational (cf. Eph. 2:20) period for the Church. God no longer speaks to His people the way that he used to (cf. Heb. 1:1-3, note aorist tense) but has rather spoken and given His fullest revelation in the person and work of Jesus Christ whom the apostles expound in their letters and in the Gospels. Thus, during this special period, the Church did not need the doctrine of Sola Scriptura as they had Christ, they had enough of his words and witnesses to them to know what Christ said. The Church also had the apostles, men gifted by God to reveal and expound the person and work of Christ. With such men in the Church, and God still giving revelation through them, there is no need for “Sola Scriptura” since the canon was still open.
But once the apostles died and generations of people were coming in which the people would not have eyewitnesses to Jesus or have heard the apostles’ teachings about Jesus Christ. Whereas Jesus’ words and the revelation through the apostles could authoratively settle doctrinal matters, there would come a time when these would not be with the Church. I have argued that Peter and Paul both foresaw this happening and each of these men commended their readers to the Scriptures – both the Old Testament and those apostolic letters and writings already being accepted as Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Peter 1:19-21, 3:16).
But all this is not to say that part of the doctrine is contained within the word of Jesus and the apostles. Remember that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is a statement about the nature, authority and sufficiency of Scripture. While it wouldn’t necessarily be inappropriate to say that the OT did not contain the necessary material to come to a saving understanding of Jesus Christ (cf. 2 Tim. 3:15), it is also certainly true that the NT reveals what is “hidden” as it were in the OT. I believe it was Augustine who is credited for saying something to the effect of “what is hidden in the OT is made clear in the NT; and what is in the NT was already contained in the OT.” The words of Christ expound and reveal to us “the heart” of the OT as it were. Jesus’ came to fulfill the OT .
So are the Scriptures sufficient for Jesus? Not in the sense that we understand Sola Scriptura with a completed canon and the cessation of revelation. But there is evidence that Jesus certainly gave supreme authority to the Scriptures above anything outside of Scripture, especially “traditions” that had even been elevated to the same level of “law” (cf. Mark 7). Jesus dismissed these “traditions” harshly. Jesus used the authority of the Scriptures as the very authority of God Himself (cf. Luke 4:1-13, John 10:34-36; Matt. 22:29-33).
The authority of Scripture in the ministry of Jesus hardly needs to be exhaustively proven from Scripture as it is evident from even a cursory reading of the Gospels that Jesus quoted from the Scriptures extensively especially in support of those teachings that seemed contrary to those of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Also, his view of the nature of Scripture as the word of God is evident from a passage like Matthew 22:29-33 in which Jesus says, “have you not read what God said…” Also, from the apostles, we read quotations from OT characters like David introduced as “the Holy Spirit says…” (Heb. 3:7) or as the Father “saying” (cf. Heb. 1:5-13). Clearly, they viewed the nature of the Scriptures as “God-breathed” and counted them as the very words of God Himself. As such, the Scriptures, by nature carried the very authority of God Himself for these were His very words through the mouths of holy men (cf. Acts. 4:24-26).
Now, this is not to say that Jesus or the apostles functioned under the belief in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. However, we can see that when it comes to the nature and, especially, the authority of Scripture the Protestant movement was more on par with their view of Scripture than Roman Catholicism is. Jesus and the apostles are the examples for appealing to Scripture to settle and prove doctrinal matters. Jesus never appealed to “tradition” that was not supported by Scripture. In fact, he condemned it as hiding the kingdom of God and a tool for keeping people out.
So again, Jesus and the apostles could not have believed in the doctrine as stated because all Scripture had yet to be given. But the groundwork for it is certainly there. In Jesus and the apostles we clearly see their beliefs in the nature and authority of Scripture and being the very word of God and carrying absolute and infallible authority above all others (cf. “the Scripture are the sole infallible authority”). We see them appealing to Scripture to support their own Gospel (cf. Acts 17:11). And finally, as demonstrated in my responses, the apostles left it to the Church, as it were, to commit themselves to the Scriptures alone as their “lamp in a dark place”, as what would be “profitable” for doctrine, reproof, correction and training in righteousness. For the Church would not always experience ongoing revelation from her Lord. She would be guided by “ordinary means” through the Holy Spirit of God.
Well is there such evidence? What kind of evidence are we looking for here? Historically speaking, Jesus and the apostle’s could not have believed in the doctrine as stated in the 16th century. Why not? Because the doctrine presupposes the completed canon of Scripture! Jesus and the apostles could not have required any to believe in the stated doctrine of Sola Scriptura during their times because that would have rendered their own words lower than Scripture. Obviously that could not be possible since Jesus’ words are the very words of God and the Apostle’s spoke and wrote some things under the infallible guidance and authority of the Holy Spirit. Requiring evidence that Jesus and the apostles believed in “Sola Scriptura” would require one to presuppose that the New Testament is really not Scripture at all.
Also, it disregards the special period in redemptive history in which God spoke to His people in various ways revealing His redemption that was hidden from the ages past. There was a time when God revealed things to certain people such as the prophets and the apostles. Such was the foundational (cf. Eph. 2:20) period for the Church. God no longer speaks to His people the way that he used to (cf. Heb. 1:1-3, note aorist tense) but has rather spoken and given His fullest revelation in the person and work of Jesus Christ whom the apostles expound in their letters and in the Gospels. Thus, during this special period, the Church did not need the doctrine of Sola Scriptura as they had Christ, they had enough of his words and witnesses to them to know what Christ said. The Church also had the apostles, men gifted by God to reveal and expound the person and work of Christ. With such men in the Church, and God still giving revelation through them, there is no need for “Sola Scriptura” since the canon was still open.
But once the apostles died and generations of people were coming in which the people would not have eyewitnesses to Jesus or have heard the apostles’ teachings about Jesus Christ. Whereas Jesus’ words and the revelation through the apostles could authoratively settle doctrinal matters, there would come a time when these would not be with the Church. I have argued that Peter and Paul both foresaw this happening and each of these men commended their readers to the Scriptures – both the Old Testament and those apostolic letters and writings already being accepted as Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Peter 1:19-21, 3:16).
But all this is not to say that part of the doctrine is contained within the word of Jesus and the apostles. Remember that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is a statement about the nature, authority and sufficiency of Scripture. While it wouldn’t necessarily be inappropriate to say that the OT did not contain the necessary material to come to a saving understanding of Jesus Christ (cf. 2 Tim. 3:15), it is also certainly true that the NT reveals what is “hidden” as it were in the OT. I believe it was Augustine who is credited for saying something to the effect of “what is hidden in the OT is made clear in the NT; and what is in the NT was already contained in the OT.” The words of Christ expound and reveal to us “the heart” of the OT as it were. Jesus’ came to fulfill the OT .
So are the Scriptures sufficient for Jesus? Not in the sense that we understand Sola Scriptura with a completed canon and the cessation of revelation. But there is evidence that Jesus certainly gave supreme authority to the Scriptures above anything outside of Scripture, especially “traditions” that had even been elevated to the same level of “law” (cf. Mark 7). Jesus dismissed these “traditions” harshly. Jesus used the authority of the Scriptures as the very authority of God Himself (cf. Luke 4:1-13, John 10:34-36; Matt. 22:29-33).
The authority of Scripture in the ministry of Jesus hardly needs to be exhaustively proven from Scripture as it is evident from even a cursory reading of the Gospels that Jesus quoted from the Scriptures extensively especially in support of those teachings that seemed contrary to those of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Also, his view of the nature of Scripture as the word of God is evident from a passage like Matthew 22:29-33 in which Jesus says, “have you not read what God said…” Also, from the apostles, we read quotations from OT characters like David introduced as “the Holy Spirit says…” (Heb. 3:7) or as the Father “saying” (cf. Heb. 1:5-13). Clearly, they viewed the nature of the Scriptures as “God-breathed” and counted them as the very words of God Himself. As such, the Scriptures, by nature carried the very authority of God Himself for these were His very words through the mouths of holy men (cf. Acts. 4:24-26).
Now, this is not to say that Jesus or the apostles functioned under the belief in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. However, we can see that when it comes to the nature and, especially, the authority of Scripture the Protestant movement was more on par with their view of Scripture than Roman Catholicism is. Jesus and the apostles are the examples for appealing to Scripture to settle and prove doctrinal matters. Jesus never appealed to “tradition” that was not supported by Scripture. In fact, he condemned it as hiding the kingdom of God and a tool for keeping people out.
So again, Jesus and the apostles could not have believed in the doctrine as stated because all Scripture had yet to be given. But the groundwork for it is certainly there. In Jesus and the apostles we clearly see their beliefs in the nature and authority of Scripture and being the very word of God and carrying absolute and infallible authority above all others (cf. “the Scripture are the sole infallible authority”). We see them appealing to Scripture to support their own Gospel (cf. Acts 17:11). And finally, as demonstrated in my responses, the apostles left it to the Church, as it were, to commit themselves to the Scriptures alone as their “lamp in a dark place”, as what would be “profitable” for doctrine, reproof, correction and training in righteousness. For the Church would not always experience ongoing revelation from her Lord. She would be guided by “ordinary means” through the Holy Spirit of God.
posted by prchdaword at 3:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home