My Thoughts on Apostolic Doctrine and Sola Scriptura

-

Acts 2:42 in its context takes place during Peter's first sermon in Pentecost. After that, we read that the crowds were convicted, Peter tells them to repent and be baptized. In Acts 2:41, we read that they believed first before they were baptized. The logical order is simple - believing precedes baptism. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit had happened (Acts 2:17) and the apostles were given that power. The apostles were granted the ability to speak many languages without having to study them. In Luke 24:29, the apostles were told to tarry in Jerusalem until they were endued with the power from on high. This would be the Holy Spirit in granting them their power. It's no wonder lying to Peter caused the couple, Ananias and Sapphira, to be knocked down dead (Acts 5:1-5). We later read that they were breaking bread and in prayers. The believers continued steadfastly to hold in apostolic doctrine or the apostles' teachings.

The Greek word for doctrine or teaching is didache. I remembered a Roman Catholic publication in my youth called "Didache" which was a devotional. I always wondered what that word meant. Didache means church teachings. Another synonym is catechism which also means the teaching of the Church or teachings of one's religion. Catechism also means formal questions put to a test. To catechize means to instruct systematically especially by questions, answers, and explanations. Reading through the Westminister Catechism and the 1689 Baptist Catechism is meant to teach the doctrines of the Bible. Having a catechism is not a bad thing as long as you agree with the Bible. A catechist is assigned to give instruction in Christian doctrines like a Sunday school teacher or a youth leader.

An organization can claim to be apostolic. I remembered a flyer from a Roman Catholic bookstore with verses to defend its supposed legitimacy. I have noticed that there are also so-called Christian cults that claimed to restore the true Church under a new name because the Church supposedly apostatized in the first century. Just because someone claims to have succession with the apostles or to be apostolic needs to be scrutinized with none other than the apostolic writings.

Certainly, we can trust the apostolic writings aren't because the apostles taught them. Rather, the apostles were men of God who had the benefit of having the Holy Spirit help them write down what was needed. You may search for "it is written" and notice it's written down 65 times in the New Testament! Jesus quoted from the authority of the Holy Scriptures. The apostles in their narratives also placed "it is written" whenever necessary to point back to an Old Testament prophecy either in the Psalms or the prophets. Jesus quoted from Deuteronomy to counter Satan's lies. They were appealing to the authority of the Scriptures to give defense that they weren't making things up. Paul also wrote that the very source of tradition must come from what the apostles wrote (2 Thessalonians 2:15, 3:6). The apostolic tradition is rooted in their writings as the New Testament Scripture.

Later, Peter wrote in 2 Peter 3:15 later mentions Paul's writings. Peter calls it "according to the wisdom that was given to him he has written to you." Verse 16 has Peter further acknowledging the authority of Paul's letters (hence, the whole Paul is Antichrist doctrine falls flat), especially with the letters. There are hard things to understand and that which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction and they do the other Scriptures. In short, Peter was equating what Paul wrote as Scriptures. Saying the apostles never carried the Scriptures around is absurd. Obviously, the canon was not established only centuries after the apostles died. Peter was most likely sent copies of Paul's epistle and probably taught from them until he was sentenced to die by crucifixion (which he chose to be crucified downward), according to Eusebius' record and the "Foxe's Book of Martyrs". Paul probably asked Timothy to send copies to Peter prior to Paul's execution. 

The teachings of the Devil (1 Timothy 4:1) can easily be contrasted to the teachings of the apostles. It's really ironic how many who get into the doctrines of demons try to use the apostolic teachings to get through with this and that. For example, 1 Timothy 4:1-3 also warns about enforced fasting, abstaining from certain foods for religious reasons, enforced celibacy in one form or another, and all these are called doctrines of devils. Paul was writing to Timothy presumably when he was weak or in prison. Paul was already considered an outlaw for being a Christian. Paul was no longer welcome by Rome or by the Jews. Paul's letters were going to be used as a safeguard especially for Timothy who was also a missionary. Presumably, Hebrews was also written by Paul as Hebrews 13:23-24 mentions Timothy. It's probably an anonymous letter to Peter which could've probably not made it if Paul's name was written on it.

That's why it's best to devote myself to studying the New Testament or the apostolic writings. We've got the synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. We've got the Book of Acts. The sources of tradition are in the letters written in the epistles. The one that concludes all the apostolic writings and traditions is the Book of Revelation or the Apocalypse of St. John as some would call it. These apostolic writings are where I can once again affirm, "Sola Scriptura!" or "The Scripture itself is the final authority." If any church claims to be apostolic but places their own tradition above Scripture then it must be shunned! It's because the apostles had each others' writings to affirm the true from the false making Sola Scriptura, Scriptural.

See also: