Proof that Christ's Church was not Sola Scriptura

[PRmerger]

close , but that’s not what I said

that Judaizers wanting the GENTILES who became Christians to conform to the Laws of Moses was not found in the Laws of Moses

LOL!

Why would the Laws of Moses have anything to say about Gentiles becoming Christians?!!

That’s exactly what’s so wrong with your arguments, alwayswill.

You can’t use Scripture as the source for doctrine for these new Christians, because the Scriptures didn’t exist yet.

 

[PRmerger]

Scripture don’t demand non- jews to be circumcised

You mean: the Old Testament didn’t, right?

You can’t equivocate on what you mean by Scripture, alwayswill.

Some times you mean: just the Old Testament.

Some times you mean: both the OT and the NT.

Pick one, and stick with it.

 

[alwayswill]

You mean: the Old Testament didn’t, right?

You can’t equivocate on what you mean by Scripture, alwayswill.

Some times you mean: just the Old Testament.

Some times you mean: both the OT and the NT.

Pick one, and stick with it.

the Law of Moses is found in the Hebrew Scriptures

 

[PRmerger]

the Law of Moses is found in the Hebrew Scriptures

So why would the Law of Moses speak about Gentiles converting to Christianity?

That would be like saying that the US Constitution addresses whether Canadians should be taxed at 40% of their income.

 

[alwayswill]

So why would the Law of Moses speak about Gentiles converting to Christianity?

That would be like saying that the US Constitution addresses whether Canadians should be taxed at 40% of their income.

But the Hebrew Scriptures do talk about non -Jews coming into the faith of the one true God: right:

and the Hebrew Scriptures do have prophesies about the Gentiles coming into the faith of the one true God: right:

 

[PRmerger]

But the Hebrew Scriptures do talk about non -Jews coming into the faith of the one true God: right:

and the Hebrew Scriptures do have prophesies about the Gentiles coming into the faith of the one true God: right:

So where do the Hebrew Scriptures address that these non-Jews do not need to be circumcised?

 

[alwayswill]

So where do the Hebrew Scriptures address that these non-Jews do not need to be circumcised?

really?

I did not come to this thread to discuss an exhaustive OT study to show God never required non -Jews to be circumcised (other than servants to Jews) when they believed in the God of Abraham…

God did not require it:

google away

 

[PRmerger]

really?

I did not come to this thread to discuss an exhaustive OT study to show God never required non -Jews to be circumcised (other than servants to Jews) when they believed in the God of Abraham…

God did not require it:

google away

But, alwayswill, YOU were the one who made that claim.

If you make a claim, it’s incumbent upon you to defend that.

Can you offer where you got this information?

 

[PRmerger]

God did not require it:

Please offer the book, chapter and verse where you get this information.

 

[alwayswill]

Please offer the book, chapter and verse where you get this information.

Chapter and verse for something that wasn’t said?
Let me know when you want to discuss the op

 

[PRmerger]

Chapter and verse for something that wasn’t said?
Let me know when you want to the op

So…the Scriptures are silent on this?

 

[PRmerger]

Incidentally, I think the above little tributary limns another problem with the Sola Scriptura mindset.

They can’t decide which is their paradigm: where Scripture is silent, it’s permitted.

AND: where Scripture is silent, it’s forbidden.

They seem to eat out of both hands on this issue, based on their own, again, private, theology.

They make up their own mind about something, and then say, “Well, Scripture is silent, so it’s permitted” OR “Scripture is silent, so it’s forbidden”.

So, for example, with taking oral contraceptives. Scripture doesn’t say: you can’t take the Pill, so, hey, it’s permitted!

BUT! Then there’s the objection to Catholicism: Scripture doesn’t say you should pray the rosary, so it’s forbidden!

 

[cominghome1966]

But the Hebrew Scriptures do talk about non -Jews coming into the faith of the one true God: right:

Yes, and when that happened under the Old Covenant the men were required to be circumcised. Ex. 12:48-49:

And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land. For no uncircumcised person shall eat it. One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you.

Even to this day, if a man wants to convert to Judaism, he must become circumcised if he is not already.

The change in dogma and practice eliminating circumcision as recorded in Acts 15 was quite radical and profound, with no direct scriptural support.

 

[pablope]

really?

I did not come to this thread to discuss an exhaustive OT study to show God never required non -Jews to be circumcised (other than servants to Jews) when they believed in the God of Abraham…

God did not require it:

google away

Ah…the typical protestant response when backed into a corner…where and when sola scriptura will not work…but you will not admit it that sola scriptura will not work…and cannot admit to the error of sola scriptura…

 

[pablope]

close , but that’s not what I said

that Judaizers wanting the GENTILES who became Christians to conform to the Laws of Moses was not found in the Laws of Moses

But…there were no Christians when the law of moses was given to the jews…

So how could the law of moses say something about Christians?

 

[alwayswill]

So…the Scriptures are silent on this?

The claim of the Judaizers that Gentiles coming to faith are required to be circumcised is not found in the Hebrews Scriptures.

That the plan of salvation would include Gentiles is found in the Hebrews Scriptures.

The council decided NOT to add a requirement to the Gentiles that was not found in Scripture

 

[alwayswill]

Yes, and when that happened under the Old Covenant the men were required to be circumcised. Ex. 12:48-49:

Even to this day, if a man wants to convert to Judaism, he must become circumcised if he is not already.

The change in dogma and practice eliminating circumcision as recorded in Acts 15 was quite radical and profound, with no direct scriptural support.

but they were not discussing the eliminating circumcision
They were discussing if it was requirement for the Gentile converts to be circumcised

And that was NOT quite radical and profound
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_controversy_in_early_Christianity#Judaism_1st_and_2nd_century_AD

“Jewish sources vary on whether or not circumcision of proselytes was a universal practice in tannaitic times.” (10-220AD)

"The issue between the Zealot and Liberal parties regarding the circumcision of proselytes remained an open one in tannaitic times"

some Jews believed the converts to Judaism should be circumcised ; some did not.

 

[alwayswill]

Ah…the typical protestant response when backed into a corner…where and when sola scriptura will not work…but you will not admit it that sola scriptura will not work…and cannot admit to the error of sola scriptura…

Sola Scriptura does not claim to produce unity of belief
(and neither does Catholicism)

and Sola Scriptura does not claim the Bible contains all knowledge:
(and neither does Catholicism)

from post 30

first : this is the description of SS that I will be using

From Catholic.com
“Even the principle of sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”), according to the sharpest Protestant scholars, means that the Bible is the ultimate authority—above councils and popes and any tradition—but not that no commentary or tradition may be cited or utilized.”
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea3.asp
Archived here: web.archive.org/web/201003300…4/0402fea3.asp

---

**From NEWADVENT.org **Sola scriptura (“Bible alone”)

The [first] objective [or formal] principle proclaims the canonical Scriptures, especially the New Testament, to be the only infallible source and rule of faith and practice, and asserts the right of private interpretation of the same, in distinction from the Roman Catholic view, which declares the Bible and tradition to be co-ordinate sources and rule of faith, and makes tradition, especially the decrees of popes and councils, the only legitimate and infallible interpreter of the Bible. In its extreme form Chillingworth expressed this principle of the Reformation in the well-known formula, “The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, is the religion of Protestants.” Protestantism, however, by no means despises or rejects church authority as such, but only subordinates it to, and measures its value by, the Bible, and believes in a progressive interpretation of the Bible through the expanding and deepening consciousness of Christendom. Hence, besides having its own symbols or standards of public doctrine, it retained all the articles of the ancient creeds and a large amount of disciplinary and ritual tradition, and rejected only those doctrines and ceremonies for which no clear warrant was found in the Bible and which seemed to contradict its letter or spirit. …"

---

First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas’ eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.
-James White—

---

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by Scripture alone”) is the Protestant Christian doctrine that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice. Sola scriptura does not deny that other authorities govern Christian life and devotion, but sees them all as subordinate to and corrected by the written word of God.

Sola scriptura, however**, does not ignore Christian history and tradition when seeking to understand the Bible.** Rather, it sees the Bible as the only final authority in matters of faith and practice.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

 

[alwayswill]

Incidentally, I think the above little tributary limns another problem with the Sola Scriptura mindset.

They can’t decide which is their paradigm: where Scripture is silent, it’s permitted.

AND: where Scripture is silent, it’s forbidden.

They seem to eat out of both hands on this issue, based on their own, again, private, theology.

They make up their own mind about something, and then say, “Well, Scripture is silent, so it’s permitted” OR “Scripture is silent, so it’s forbidden”.

So, for example, with taking oral contraceptives. Scripture doesn’t say: you can’t take the Pill, so, hey, it’s permitted!

BUT! Then there’s the objection to Catholicism: Scripture doesn’t say you should pray the rosary, so it’s forbidden!

from New Advent’s article on SS.
newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm

“Protestantism, however, by no means despises or rejects church authority as such, but only subordinates it to, and measures its value by, the Bible, and believes in a progressive interpretation of the Bible through the expanding and deepening consciousness of Christendom. Hence, besides having its own symbols or standards of public doctrine, it retained all the articles of the ancient creeds and a large amount of disciplinary and ritual tradition, and rejected only those doctrines and ceremonies for which no clear warrant was found in the Bible and which seemed to contradict its letter or spirit. …”

isn’t that exactly what was done in Acts15?

the council rejected the claim of the Judiazers that it was a requirement for converts to be circumcised as there no clear warrant was found in the Hebrew Scriptures and which seemed to contradict its letter or spirit of God’s word

 

[PRmerger]

But…there were no Christians when the law of moses was given to the jews…

So how could the law of moses say something about Christians?

Egg-zactly.

That’s why the Council couldn’t use Scripture to examine what the Judaizers were proposing.

No Christian used Sola Scriptura back then.

And no Christian should use SS now.