Information On The Church Of Christ

[JHow]

Hello JHow,

As a member of a church of Christ I’d be interested in you continuing that thought of how communion is considered a symbol and yet not treated as such.

From my own experience, we treat it very seriously and use it as an opportunity to examine ourselves and remember His sacrifice, but I don’t think solemnity and care equate to inadvertently believing we handle the real presence. Did you mean something else

Just to be clear, I belonged to the “Christian Church” branch, independent, non-denominational, not exactly the same as Church of Christ or Disciples of Christ, so YMMV.

My point was that the behavior and teaching around communion comes very close to the Catholic understanding of a sacrament imparting grace. I think the behavior, the solemnity (as Campbell often puts it) of how they practiced communion challenges what is believed intellectually. I’ll try to give examples:

In my former Church it was almost a point of pride that they had communion every Sunday. This is not the case in some other denominations, where communion may only occur a few times a year. Sunday obligation was just as strong a concept in my old church, even if we didn’t call it that exactly. In fact, in his day, Campbell advocated weekly communion in opposition to the “papists”. The chief argument for weekly communion was the practice of the “early church”, or more specifically the apostles; in fact this was the most powerful argument for any church practice.

Communion was considered, and was often described as, the “central act of Christian worship”. In the worship service this was illustrated by the order of worship, which placed communion in the middle of the service. So, the weekly obligation was really an obligation to attend a service with communion.

Great importance was placed on the form, including the bread and juice used. The bread had to be un-leaven, no yeast. In practice they sometimes used extremely hard pellet-like morsels, but also sometimes a cracker-like large piece that could be broken into smaller pieces. (Some stressed the importance of the act of breaking – I went to several different Campbellite churches as my family moved around). The “fruit of the vine” could only be grape juice (there was an aversion to alcohol that in hindsight makes me smile). No experimentation was permitted here. Yeasty bread? Nope. Water? Nein! Bread with raisins (I saw it once, no joke, at another denomination)? Nyet!

Alexander Campbell was very much concerned with “open communion”. This was not just that any believer could receive, but also that the believer did not require a token or permission from the “kirk” to receive. In the words of the communion formula used in my Church “let each examine himself and so partake…”. Additionally, baptism was the mark of a Christian, so really communion was open to the baptized. First baptism, then communion…

Since I mentioned the communion formula, by necessity, derived as it is from the gospel texts, it bore great similarity to the words said at mass: “This is my body…” “This do in memory of me…”

Also, although there was no liturgy, in practice the elders (it was the elder who pronounced the communion blessing) always said the same thing, week after week, by rote… “This is the lord’s table, set for his people, to which we can neither invite to de-bar, so let each examine himself and so partake…” If they had been reading from a script, the effect would have been no different.

(To say nothing of the “Doxology” we sang without fail at the end of the service: “Blest be the tie that binds Our hearts in Christian love; The fellowship of kindred minds Is like to that above.” )

Although communion was commonly called “the Lord’s Table”, I was very clearly taught that communion was definitely not a common meal, but rather a spiritual meal. It imparted a spiritual benefit to those who received it. While transubstantiation was obviously not taught, the focus of communion was “the thing signified”, that is communion with God. God was present in communion, but not in the bread. Hence the reverence with which the event was approached.

Communion was distributed by “elders” and “deacons”, who were exclusively and only men. The deacons were instituted by a laying on of hands from the elders. The requirements for deacons and elders, also derived from scripture, bore great similarity to the requirements for priests and deacons in the Catholic Church (husband of one wife, etc.).

Many elements of what I described above are very common to Catholicism (as they must be, derived from the same apostolic source), including what I see as a sacramental view of communion. The real difference comes in the teaching - not the behavior. If you add to that a very literal, “what did the early church think” approach to reading John 6 and also maybe perceiving a difference between metaphor and symbol, then I think you find yourself very close to a Catholic position.

 

[Traverse]

Thanks for clarifying for me, jhow.

You’re quite right. Having attended mass a few times, and of course my own church services, they are surprisingly similar. You wouldn’t think so just reading about it.

Even with all the “now we stand and sing, now we sit, etc etc.” Stuff that isn’t actually required, per se, but we can see an example of in the writings of the church fathers (or at least one of them. I don’t remember).

Other denominations certainly do like to treat communion as, at worse a common meal, and at most a little thing you do that doesn’t mean much. I tend to have more in common with my catholic friend belief wise than any baptist I’ve ever known as a result.

 

[eddie_too]

none of the non-catholic churchs that claim to be christian explain why their interpretations of the bible are superior to the interpretations of the people who defined and wrote the bible?

 

[believerdoc]

Just to be clear, I belonged to the “Christian Church” branch, independent, non-denominational, not exactly the same as Church of Christ or Disciples of Christ, so YMMV.

My point was that the behavior and teaching around communion comes very close to the Catholic understanding of a sacrament imparting grace. I think the behavior, the solemnity (as Campbell often puts it) of how they practiced communion challenges what is believed intellectually. I’ll try to give examples:

In my former Church it was almost a point of pride that they had communion every Sunday. This is not the case in some other denominations, where communion may only occur a few times a year. Sunday obligation was just as strong a concept in my old church, even if we didn’t call it that exactly. In fact, in his day, Campbell advocated weekly communion in opposition to the “papists”. The chief argument for weekly communion was the practice of the “early church”, or more specifically the apostles; in fact this was the most powerful argument for any church practice.

Communion was considered, and was often described as, the “central act of Christian worship”. In the worship service this was illustrated by the order of worship, which placed communion in the middle of the service. So, the weekly obligation was really an obligation to attend a service with communion.

Great importance was placed on the form, including the bread and juice used. The bread had to be un-leaven, no yeast. In practice they sometimes used extremely hard pellet-like morsels, but also sometimes a cracker-like large piece that could be broken into smaller pieces. (Some stressed the importance of the act of breaking – I went to several different Campbellite churches as my family moved around). The “fruit of the vine” could only be grape juice (there was an aversion to alcohol that in hindsight makes me smile). No experimentation was permitted here. Yeasty bread? Nope. Water? Nein! Bread with raisins (I saw it once, no joke, at another denomination)? Nyet!

Alexander Campbell was very much concerned with “open communion”. This was not just that any believer could receive, but also that the believer did not require a token or permission from the “kirk” to receive. In the words of the communion formula used in my Church “let each examine himself and so partake…”. Additionally, baptism was the mark of a Christian, so really communion was open to the baptized. First baptism, then communion…

Since I mentioned the communion formula, by necessity, derived as it is from the gospel texts, it bore great similarity to the words said at mass: “This is my body…” “This do in memory of me…”

Also, although there was no liturgy, in practice the elders (it was the elder who pronounced the communion blessing) always said the same thing, week after week, by rote… “This is the lord’s table, set for his people, to which we can neither invite to de-bar, so let each examine himself and so partake…” If they had been reading from a script, the effect would have been no different.

(To say nothing of the “Doxology” we sang without fail at the end of the service: “Blest be the tie that binds Our hearts in Christian love; The fellowship of kindred minds Is like to that above.” )

Although communion was commonly called “the Lord’s Table”, I was very clearly taught that communion was definitely not a common meal, but rather a spiritual meal. It imparted a spiritual benefit to those who received it. While transubstantiation was obviously not taught, the focus of communion was “the thing signified”, that is communion with God. God was present in communion, but not in the bread. Hence the reverence with which the event was approached.

Communion was distributed by “elders” and “deacons”, who were exclusively and only men. The deacons were instituted by a laying on of hands from the elders. The requirements for deacons and elders, also derived from scripture, bore great similarity to the requirements for priests and deacons in the Catholic Church (husband of one wife, etc.).

Many elements of what I described above are very common to Catholicism (as they must be, derived from the same apostolic source), including what I see as a sacramental view of communion. The real difference comes in the teaching - not the behavior. If you add to that a very literal, “what did the early church think” approach to reading John 6 and also maybe perceiving a difference between metaphor and symbol, then I think you find yourself very close to a Catholic position.

It has been pointed out that there are 3 branched to the Stone/Campbell movement. As a member of the Disciples of Christ we hold The Lord’s Supper or Communion as central to Christian worship and it is celebrated every Sunday. For more information about the Disciples of Christ I have attached a video with some very basic information. youtube.com/watch?v=cJSBUtUM_EM

 

[Traverse]

none of the non-catholic churchs that claim to be christian explain why their interpretations of the bible are superior to the interpretations of the people who defined and wrote the bible?

Paul and the other apostles didn’t exactly write commentaries about what they already wrote. Their writings stood alone aside from their preaching, which we do not have a recording of today. Therefore, these interpretations you speak of, of the people who wrote the bible, don’t exist. I’m well aware you may point to sacred tradition, as a passing down of their teaching, but how do you actually know those teachings were passed down? Most of sacred tradition, as it is, pertains to traditions developed centuries later.

Can you explain why you think the interpretations of the people who didn’t write the bible are superior to the interpretations of people today? There is much to be said for a man who learned at the feet of the apostles, sure, but so did the Corinthians and they didn’t exactly have their act together. What makes the interpretation of one church father better than another?

 

[eddie_too]

one Church decided what books belong in the bible.

it makes sense to me that the interpretations of the books in the bible would be most accurate if made by the church that created the bible.

 

[in_servitude]

Paul and the other apostles didn’t exactly write commentaries about what they already wrote. Their writings stood alone aside from their preaching, which we do not have a recording of today. Therefore, these interpretations you speak of, of the people who wrote the bible, don’t exist. I’m well aware you may point to sacred tradition, as a passing down of their teaching, but how do you actually know those teachings were passed down? Most of sacred tradition, as it is, pertains to traditions developed centuries later.

Christianity is a revealed religion - it comes to us through other people. As shown in the NT, errors were being created and addressed from the start. Do you believe that Christianity is revealed to us through other people?

Why do you say, for example, that the book of John is actually the Word of God? I say it is the Word of God because I believe in the authority of the Catholic Church to make that determination. Protestants reject that authority.

The truth is that even in the 4th century, there were Gnostic books floating around - the gospel of Thomas, the gospel of Mary. Why do you reject those books?

Can you explain why you think the interpretations of the people who didn’t write the bible are superior to the interpretations of people today? There is much to be said for a man who learned at the feet of the apostles, sure, but so did the Corinthians and they didn’t exactly have their act together. What makes the interpretation of one church father better than another?

The Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, and teachings on faith and morals are kept free from error. It is **not **because there were people in the know, or because there were super smart people working on it, or because the early church fathers were super holy and could mentally calculate the proper contents of Sacred Scripture.

Will you answer my questions?

 

[Traverse]

Christianity is a revealed religion - it comes to us through other people. As shown in the NT, errors were being created and addressed from the start. Do you believe that Christianity is revealed to us through other people?

Yes.

Why do you say, for example, that the book of John is actually the Word of God? I say it is the Word of God because I believe in the authority of the Catholic Church to make that determination. Protestants reject that authority.

[2Pe 1:20-21 NASB] 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Given the origin of the New Testament books, there would not have been confusion about what was scripture. In fact, you really don’t see confusion until much later. The old testament books were probably more confusing for people. There are many lists where the church fathers omit a book here and there, or add one, but that isn’t often the case with the new testament books. At least, not to my knowledge.

The truth is that even in the 4th century, there were Gnostic books floating around - the gospel of Thomas, the gospel of Mary. Why do you reject those books?

They’re easy to reject on a cursory glance, to be fair. Blatant contradictions with the rest of scripture makes them easy to discard. I do not discount tradition’s role in that we got the bible and it was passed on and at some point you realize “hey this new writing came about years after the bible was complete why are we considering it?”

The word teaches us the importance of testing spirits, of knowing people by their fruits.

The Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, and teachings on faith and morals are kept free from error. It is **not **because there were people in the know, or because there were super smart people working on it, or because the early church fathers were super holy and could mentally calculate the proper contents of Sacred Scripture.

I agree! The issue is we have differences of opinion on which church was THE church established by Christ. No doubt His church has been guided by the Holy Spirit and was guided in its early days to recognize what scripture was.

[1Cr 14:37-38 NASB] 37 If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. 38 But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.

One of the major differences between my belief and the catholic beliefs is the nature of spiritual gifts. I believe that spiritual gifts were a temporary thing, as stated in scripture, used to help us until the “perfect” comes. My interpretation of the “perfect” is the completed word of God. That is, the finished bible. The early church rightly needed the spiritual gifts in the first century when they did not have a complete book to rely on for their teaching.

As such, while I believe the Holy Spirit still works today, I do not believe it is involved with the bestowing of spiritual gifts in the same manner. I base this on the fact that in the early church, as presented in the bible, these gifts were not rare. They were all over the place. But today, I do not see them at all and for those who do belief claim they are rare and hardly ever seen.

The speaking of tongues is used as a sign for those who do not believe, for those outside the church, for by this miracle they can be persuaded. Yet this is not a thing that is ever seen anymore. This might be somewhat of a tangent, but my point is that while the church itself will never die, I don’t think you can say that anyone within it is free from error. The gifts to help us be free from error no longer exist, and honestly, the Corinthians were in error all the time in spite of them.

Our promise from Christ is that the church will endure. If all men fall yet a couple remain, then the church of Christ still exists on earth and has not been destroyed by the gates of Hades. But to suggest that a magisterium can be free from error doesn’t quite make sense. Though furthmore, I’d ask if you knew that the church you claim is free from error is THE church.

There’s lots of church history, and lots of tradition, but it seems there is more tradition than history and tradition doesn’t seem to really count as evidence for anyone other than catholics.

Will you answer my questions?

Yes.

I’d like to note that if anything comes off as rude it is unintentional. I feel like making that disclaimer when it’s a long post. Just in case.

 

[believerdoc]

one Church decided what books belong in the bible.

it makes sense to me that the interpretations of the books in the bible would be most accurate if made by the church that created the bible.

A number of councils established the canon of scripture and even then there was great disagreement over some that were either included or excluded. The Bible as we know it was not decided upon by any church but by the Holy Spirit acting through flawed human beings. If you understand history you will know that the only reason Christians relied on the church for their interpretation was that most believers were illiterate so they could not read sacred scripture for themselves; they were forced to follow the interpretations of those that could read it. Luther became a priest and had never read Sacred Scripture. It was not until he was sent to the university that he learned to read scripture. The church even forbade translations of the Bible into the vernacular of the people; the first German Bible caused great division. Luther was sent, by the superior of his order, to the source of our faith…The Bible!!!

 

[pablope]

Paul and the other apostles didn’t exactly write commentaries about what they already wrote. Their writings stood alone aside from their preaching, which we do not have a recording of today. Therefore, these interpretations you speak of, of the people who wrote the bible, don’t exist. I’m well aware you may point to sacred tradition, as a passing down of their teaching, but how do you actually know those teachings were passed down? Most of sacred tradition, as it is, pertains to traditions developed centuries later.

Can you explain why you think the interpretations of the people who didn’t write the bible are superior to the interpretations of people today? There is much to be said for a man who learned at the feet of the apostles, sure, but so did the Corinthians and they didn’t exactly have their act together. What makes the interpretation of one church father better than another?

from 1John 4… Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world……………6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

A quote from Ireneus:

St. Irenaeus (d. AD 200) writes:

But, again, when we refer [the heretics] to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; . . . It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition

This teaching is preserved by the proper succession and ordination of presbyters…and writing before Irenaeus:

Then, Clement of Rome writes this in his Epistle to Corinth…i
earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-lightfoot.html

1Clem 42:4 So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe.
1Clem 44:2 For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration.

59:1 But if some should be disobedient to the things spoken by him through us, let them know that they will entangle themselves in no small transgression and danger,

 

[mackbrislawn]

A number of councils established the canon of scripture and even then there was great disagreement over some that were either included or excluded. The Bible as we know it was not decided upon by any church but by the Holy Spirit acting through flawed human beings. If you understand history you will know that the only reason Christians relied on the church for their interpretation was that most believers were illiterate so they could not read sacred scripture for themselves; they were forced to follow the interpretations of those that could read it. Luther became a priest and had never read Sacred Scripture. It was not until he was sent to the university that he learned to read scripture. The church even forbade translations of the Bible into the vernacular of the people; the first German Bible caused great division. Luther was sent, by the superior of his order, to the source of our faith…The Bible!!!

But, the source of our faith is not the Bible. The source of our faith is the preaching of the apostles. This preaching is carried on by Jesus’ Church; so, in a sense, the source of our faith is the Church. The Bible is a tool given to it (not to individuals) for use in its Christ-given mission to evangelize.

The Bible as we know it was decided upon by Jesus’ Church. Was it guided by the Holy Spirit in doing so? That is what we believe because the Church we have faith in teaches so! You say you believe the Holy Spirit decided upon the Bible acting through flawed human beings. But what were these flawed human beings if not the Church! And if these people were flawed, how do we know they were not lying when they said the Holy Spirit guided them?

It’s quite true from history we know that most believers were illiterate so they couldn’t read scripture for themselves. Jesus knew that so that is the reason He established a Church to teach the people. The Church is Jesus’ Church of which He is the head and the Church is His body. Jesus commissioned this Church to teach and baptize the people. That is why the Church is the source of our faith. The Christian bible was given to the Church for its use in teaching and in reading of scripture to the people. It is the job of Christ’s Holy Spirit guided Church to interpret the bible, not the individual. The intent of the Bible throughout history is for it be to be read to the believers. Since few believers could read and even fewer had their own scriptures they had to gather periodically (generally once a week) in the synagogue or church for scripture to be read to them. They heard scripture. To them scripture was a group and oral experience, not a solitary and silent reading experience as we often do it today.

Therefore, because of history we know that most people were illiterate and only few expensive copies of scripture were around, we therefore conclude that God could not have intended for people to read scripture to get their knowledge of Him. The only way would be for there to be a divine organization to spread the word and to decide which of its writings should be considered inspired and hence to be used to be read to the faithful.

 

[Traverse]

Pablope, the need for continually appointing bishops and deacons is not the same thing as one man transferring a teaching that was not written down to another.

Truly teaching is passed on, but where is the source of that teaching? The source is God and though we didn’t have it in the first century, today we do have His complete word for us. A record of what was taught and, in its own right, a tradition that is passed down through the ages.

Why do you assume that it is new revelation not found in the word that is passed on and not scripture itself and examples for how to live a good Christian life and fight against sin? Where does it come from that tradition refers to new revelation?

 

[eddie_too]

part of sacred tradition is the correct interpretation of the sacred scriptures.

until the 11th century, all christians agreed on what the words of the bible mean. in the eleventh century there was a disagreement about the correct understanding of the relationships within the trinity and about papal fallibility. this diosagreement resulted in the Great Schism that produced the orthodox version of these two doctrines.

it was not until the 16th century (nearly 1,500 years after the Lord’s Ascension) that a multitude of interpretations about the meaning of sacred scripture appeared.

in the 16th century, numerous men began to claim for themselves the right to interpret the sacred scriptures differently from the interpretion of the previous 1,500 years.

 

[eddie_too]

i should add that none of the men who, in the 16th century, claimed for themselves the right to change the traditional interpretation of scripture were successors to the apostles. they created their interpretations apart from the apostles’ successors.

 

[Traverse]

There were plenty of disagreements even early on. Gnostics and so on.

 

[eddie_too]

traverse,

that is quite true. there were disputes early on, but the apostles and their successors knew and remembered what Jesus taught and those who taught differently, the gnostics for example, were identified as not possessing the true teachings of Jesus by the apostles and their successors.

from Pentecost Sunday on, the body of believers, led by the apostles, distinguished between what Jesus actually taught and what some people were saying He taught.

 

[kmcarl56]

I am so saddened by the teachings of some of those CoC ministers who tried to claim such nonsense. I was raised and was baptised in the Church of Christ, and went to several different churches due to moves, but I was NEVER taught that the CoC was the one and only blessed church. Rather, I was taught that all people who follow Christ and love our one living God with all their hearts, souls, and minds are saved by Him.

To us, it didn’t matter how you got the message, as long as you got the message straight from the Bible, and not just from some guy who thinks his way is the only way. I was taught that Jesus is the only way, and that by keeping yourself in the Word, you will know the Truth because God will reveal it to you. You may have to read it a thousand times, but your heart, soul and mind will eventually be enlightened by the Holy Spirit.

Please don’t believe everything you hear or read, or clump everyone into one huge ball of wax. I would inform your friend that Jesus told us to love all people as we love ourselves, and that we are NEVER to judge them. We are earthly creatures with a spiritual nature. Only God knows who He will or will not accept into His kingdom. For me, I am just trying to make sure that I try to do my best to follow His word.

:blackeye: Let us stop throwing punches, and start throwing hugs of unity! :grouphug:

 

[pablope]

Pablope, the need for continually appointing bishops and deacons is not the same thing as one man transferring a teaching that was not written down to another.

Let me clarify…prior to the appointing and ordaining, those being appointed and ordained had to be taught…the teaching was transferred to them…then ordained.

You can see this in Paul’s own example:

Galatians 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days.
Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

Now look at Acts 13:
1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

And what he and Barnabas do in their missions:

And when they [Ss. Paul and Barnabus] had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they believed." (Acts 14:23)

And what he tells Timothy and Titus later:

Titus 1:5 “For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldst ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee.”

! Tim. 1:3 As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine…"

2 Tim 1:6
“I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands.”

c. 1 Tim 4:14
He spoke of the same thing in 1 Timothy 4:14, where Paul explains how he must fulfill his ministry as an evangelist and tells him: “Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of elders laid their hands upon you.”

1 Tim. 5:19-22:
Never admit any charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. . . . Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor participate in another man’s sins; keep yourself pure."

*Paul tells Timothy not to lay hands on an elder too quickly; don’t ordain him until he has been tested and shown to be of excellent character. Otherwise Timothy will share in his sins.
*

Truly teaching is passed on, but where is the source of that teaching?

 

[eddie_too]

kmkarl56

from whom did you get the bible? the bible was most certainly created in time by men.

who were those men and would they not know more about what the bible teaches then someone who was not involved in creating the bible?

do you really think God wants every single human to be forced to rely on only their own limited abilities to know and believe what He teaches?

have you never encountered another human being that believes in foolishness?

do you not know there are people who believe in genocide, rwanda for a prime example of them.

 

[pablope]

There were plenty of disagreements even early on. Gnostics and so on.

That is right…and you can see the first disagreement being tackled in Acts 15. But how did the Church tackle this disagreement?

It is discussed in the link I previously provided to you…mark-shea.com/tradition.html

The Church, of course, began as an almost totally Jewish sect. Its Lord was a Jew, the apostles were all Jews, the first thousands of converts were Jews and the only Bible it had when Gentiles began flooding into the Church were Jewish Scriptures. As delegates of the supposed Bible-only “hidden Church” attending the Council of Jerusalem, let’s try to resolve the question of whether to circumcise Gentiles who want to join the Covenant People. What does Scripture say?

It says the covenant of circumcision is “an everlasting covenant” (Gen 17:7). It says the Patriarchs, Moses and the Prophets are circumcised. It says that circumcision is enjoined, not only on descendants of Abraham, but upon every male who wants to join the Covenant People (Ex 12:48). Period. No exceptions. Moreover, looking around the room we note that the apostles and elders are all circumcised and that the Lord Jesus they preach was circumcised (Lk 2:21). And Jesus himself says that not one jot or tittle of the law would by any means pass away (Mt 5:18) while he is stone silent that Gentiles be exempted from the immemorial requirement of circumcision for all who wish to join the Covenant People.

And so, the Council meets and, in light of all this obvious scriptural teaching, declares…

…that circumcision for Gentiles is against the will of the God who does not change.

Suddenly the whole thing looks perversely Catholic, don’t it? So did apostolic Tradition change Scripture or what?

Nope. It simply acted as a lens and refocused the light of Scripture so that something which had been hidden there was now visible. For, despite appearances, the dogmatic definitions of the Church do not just pop up with absolutely no relation to Scripture. Rather, they assemble the materially sufficient revelation of Scripture using the mortar of Sacred Tradition. And that Tradition is not separate, secret and parallel to Scripture, but the common teaching, life, and worship of the Church. In the case of the Council of Jerusalem, the common teaching from the apostles included the then-unwritten command of Christ to preach the gospel to the whole world (Mt 28:19). It included the as-yet-unwritten common knowledge of Peter’s mystical revelation by the Holy Spirit (“Do not call anything impure that God has made clean” [Acts 10:15]). It included the experiences of Paul and Barnabas in preaching to the Gentiles (Acts 15:12). It is through this Sacred Tradition that James reads Scripture and sees in Scripture, not a judge or “final rule of faith” but a witness to the authoritative decision of the Church in Council. For he says not “we agree with the Prophet Amos” but rather that the words of the prophets “agree with” the Council (Acts 15:15). In short, the Council places the Church on the judge’s seat and the Scripture in the witness box, deriving its revelation not from Scripture alone but from Sacred Tradition and the magisterial authority of the apostles in union with Scripture. And so materially sufficient bricks of Old Testament revelation, which we thought were made to build into a synagogue are stacked and mortared with apostolic Tradition by the trowel of the Church’s magisterial authority, and turn out to make a cathedral instead.

The biblical Council, like the modern Catholic Church, places Scripture in the context of Tradition and magisterial, apostolic authority. The biblical Council, like the modern Catholic Church, speaks with apostolic authority and declares, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” (Acts 15:29). And so, the biblical Council, just like the modern Catholic Church, develops a doctrine which, to “Bible-only” eyes, appears to flatly nullify Scripture yet which, upon closer inspection, turns out to uphold it (Rom 3:31).