u/Dangerous_Drama7172

Do you guys believe the apostles taught Sola Scriptura, or was it invented later built upon the apostles teachings ?

I'm not presuposing that Sola Scriptura is the 66 books, even if that it's seems to be a necessary condition for it to work in real life, but only that they taught that only what the Scripture (whatever that be), is what people can be bound to believe, to be the rule of faith.

Some people in the comments shrink the definition of Sola Scriptura to be merely that the Church can bind people to believe in other things that are not found in the scripture, but they can't call that infallible, but it's completely anachronistic, the reformation in Switzerland started because the people refused to keep Lent, I don't think the Church was teaching that Lent was infallible, but that they should be bound to follow anyway. And Luther says in diet of worms that he won't follow popes and councils, but he must be convinced by the scripture only, I don't think he viewed their authority as something that could bind his conscious even if they weren't infallible.

I can cite here a bunch of authoritative protestants documents saying the same, but I don't want to make that too long, so I'm gonna put in a comment here.

My only question is whether you believe that the apostles taught the Bible as the only rule of faith for the church.

I'm just being ironic guys, don't ban me.

https://preview.redd.it/pgra6juhw7hh1.png?width=499&format=png&auto=webp&s=9b2aedafa084bae20c297f2388d4e3e0a1a4d966

RZ has an old video in which he says that protestants believe that the Church can have errors, but not heresies, while Restorationists believed the church had heresies.

But he made another video recently saying that it's possible that national churches can become heretical, and stop being churches, so other countries should intervene in this case.

And overall I don't think that this position holds much water among other protestants, I don't think that Luther, or most protestants believe that Catholic doctrines they reject are merely errors, but very much heresies, and idolatrous.

So I would like to ask you guys whether you had thought about this question, and had some systematic distinctions, rather than just slogans, things that can really differentiate from Restorationists.

Because, I saw a video of Wes Huff saying that he believes people can saved in the Catholic Church despite the Catholic Church, which is exactly what I heard Mormons say, so I don't see how one can believe that what existed prior to the reformation was a Church, if it couldn't do the bare minimum mission, which was to save people, so people were saved despite it, when they didn't believe in catholic theology as the means to be saved but appealed to God's mercy only, wasn't the Catholic Church operating like a non-christian religion in this case ? I can imagine a non-christian rejecting his own religious doctrines and appealing to God's mercy in desperate situation and being saved.