Replies

no, sola scriptura was never practiced by the Apostles and could not have been practiced by the Catholic Church in the first few hundred years after John died. It was the sacred tradition kept by the Church that determined what books were canonical and which were not. you probably don’t know it, but there were many more books than 27 that claimed to be Scripture. only the authority of the Catholic Church ( received from Jesus Himself ) and being led by the Holy Spirit, can we know we have the correct canon.

There were many Early Church "Fathers" who would disagree with you about that. From http://www.christiantruth.com/scriptureandchurchfathers.html:

The Authority and Sufficiency of Scripture in the Early Church

It is in the mid–second century in the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian that we encounter the first clear articulation of the concept of tradition. Prior to this, we find little use of the word by the earliest fathers, known as the Apostolic Fathers, and the apologists such as Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch and Athenagoras. Rather, we find a constant appeal to the Old and New Testaments as authoritative sources of doctrine. These fathers held a very high view of the authority of the Scriptures because they believed them to be inspired by God. In his Epistle to the Corinthians, Clement of Rome wrote that the Scriptures are the oracles of God.7Â He made reference again and again to the authority of Scripture with the prefix, ‘it is written,’ and quotes both the Old and New Testaments as inspired by the Holy Spirit.8 In the same Epistle, he quotes from the New Testament book of Hebrews:

For it is thus written, ‘Who maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire.’

Polycarp quoted the writings of Paul, calling them Scripture and including them under the general title of sacred Scriptures. Justin Martyr likewise affirmed the inspiration of the Old Testament prophets by the Holy Spirit. Athenagoras gave one of the strongest statements of all the Apostolic Fathers and apologists on the inspired nature of the prophetic writings of the Old Testament:

If we satisfied ourselves with advancing such considerations as these, our doctrines might by some be looked upon as human. But, since the voices of the prophets confirm our arguments—for I think that you also, with your great zeal for knowledge, and your great attainments in learning, cannot be ignorant of the writings either of Moses or of Isaiah and Jeremiah, and the other prophets, who, lifted in ecstasy above the natural operations of their minds by the impulses of the Divine Spirit, uttered the things with which they were inspired, the Spirit making use of them as a flute–player breathes into a flute.

There is no appeal in these writings to the concept of tradition as that embraced by the Roman Catholic Church today. They are full of direct quotations from the Old Testament and paraphrases or direct allusions to the New. The writings of the Apostolic Fathers literally breathe the New Testament. With the exception of 3 John and Jude, every book of the New Testament is either cited or alluded to in these early writings. There is no appeal to an oral tradition. The word tradition, when used in its verb form, refers to the handing over of the faith, the means employed being the Scriptures, either the Old or New Testaments. Ellen Flesseman–van Leer makes these observations about the Apologists’ writings:

The only formal authority the Apologists call upon...is Scripture. Aristedes gives first a summary of the main points of the Christian creed and then an exposition of Christian morality, i.e., of the commandments of the Lord Jesus Christ. The source of knowledge of this Christian faith is the Scriptures of the Christians.

The Antignostic Fathers

It is with the antignostic fathers of the mid to late second century, in particular Irenaeus and Tertullian, that we see the emergence of the twin concepts of Scripture and tradition. These fathers made reference to a tradition handed down from the apostles which carries inherent authority because, as they contended, it was apostolic in nature. They referred to this teaching repeatedly as the rule of faith or the canon of truth. The question is, What relationship did this apostolic tradition have to Scripture? Was it a body of doctrine different from Scripture in content, oral in nature and therefore a second vehicle of revelation? Or was it a teaching, the content of which is derived from Scripture and therefore subordinate to Scripture in authority? Let us look in detail at the teaching of these two fathers.

Irenaeus

Irenaeus is considered one of the most important of the early Church fathers. He was born around 140 A.D. in Asia Minor and in his early years was acquainted with Polycarp, the martyr from Smyrna, who was a disciple of the apostle John. He later became a bishop of Lyons and was highly respected as a Church leader and theologian. He is principally known for his refutation of the Gnostic heresies and defense of orthodoxy.

Irenaeus’ View of Scripture

Irenaeus leaves his readers in no doubt as to his view of Scripture. He referred to them over and over again as perfect and inspired, divine, the scriptures of the Lord, sacred, and authoritative. The Scriptures embody the fullness of truth handed down to the Church from the apostles, and being inspired, are fully authoritative for proof for the doctrinal teaching of the Church. He states:

Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him.

Irenaeus’ criticism of the Gnostic system was the lack of proof for their teaching:

Moreover, they possess no proof of their system, which has but recently been invented by them...Such, then, is their system, which neither the prophets announced, nor the Lord taught, nor the apostles delivered, but of which they boast that beyond all others they have a perfect knowledge. They gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures...

It is clear that what Irenaeus meant by proof was documentation from Scripture. This lack of it proved to him that Gnostic teaching was not apostolic. In fact, Irenaeus goes on to say that if a doctrine cannot be proven from Scripture it is purely speculative and cannot be known. He made it clear that revelation comes only through Scripture, so if Scripture is silent on a subject one cannot pretend to know what it does not reveal. He rejected the legitimacy of speculation on any matter not revealed in Scripture. The importance of this principle is apparent when applied to the subject of tradition. Irenaeus believed that true apostolic tradition cannot be purely oral in nature—it must be verified from the writings of the apostles. This was the point of contention between Irenaeus and his Gnostic opponents. The Gnostics claimed to possess an oral tradition from the apostles which was supplemental to Scripture and immune to the Scriptural proofs demanded by Irenaeus. We will look at this in more detail in a moment. According to Irenaeus, in order for tradition to be demonstrated as truly apostolic it must be documented from Scripture.

He further buttresses his case by stating that Scripture is the medium by which the true apostolic teaching has been handed down to the Church. He acknowledged that the apostles initially preached orally, but goes on to say that their teaching was then committed to writing, and it is that writing—the New Testament—that is the medium by which the apostolic tradition or teaching is handed down to the Church. It is those writings which have become the ground and pillar of the faith of the Church:

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

The phrase ‘handed down’ is the verb form of the word ‘tradition.’ What he is saying, then, is that the transmission of apostolic teaching is traditioned by means of Scripture. He writes further that the apostles committed to the Church the fullness of God’s revelation, and therefore, all things pertaining to the truth:

Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life.

It is clear that Irenaeus taught that Scripture is the pillar and ground of the faith. His reference to the apostles lodging the fullness of truth in the hands of the Church is primarily a reference to Scripture. He does assert that the Church possesses the truth which anyone can ascertain by listening to her preaching, and emphasizing that to embrace the teaching of the Church is to embrace the tradition of the truth:

Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?

Irenaeus proposes here a hypothetical situation. The Churches have received the tradition of the truth from the apostles. What, he asks, if they had not left us any writings? Then it would be necessary to follow the teaching, the tradition, of those Churches which have had direct contact with the apostles. The operative phrase here is, ‘what if the apostles had not left us their writings.’ But in point of fact they have left us their writings. And the point he makes is that while the Church does preach and teach orally, the doctrinal content of that preaching and teaching is directly verifiable from the written Scriptures. Irenaeus is not affirming the existence of oral tradition. He is simply presenting a hypothetical situation as a way of combating the Gnostic heretics.

The Bible is the means by which the traditio (tradition), or teaching of the apostles is transmitted from generation to generation and by which true apostolic teaching can be verified and error refuted. Irenaeus actually uses a form of the word ‘tradition’ to convey this idea. The importance of Scripture to Irenaeus as a doctrinal norm can be seen from the fact that, as Ellen Flesseman—van Leer put it:

The entire book of Adversus Haereses is broadly speaking but a demonstration from Scripture that the Church doctrine is right and the gnostic doctrine false...If Irenaeus wants to prove the truth of a doctrine materially, he turns to Scripture, because therein the teaching of the apostles is objectively accessible. Proof from tradition and Scripture serve one and the same end: to identify the teaching of the Church as the original apostolic teaching. The first establishes that the teaching of the Church is the apostolic teaching, and the second, what this apostolic teaching is.