Proof that Christ's Church was not Sola Scriptura

[PRmerger]

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

So the Christian bishops did NOT use Scripture for their decision.

They, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, used Tradition.

Incidentally, alwayswill, I wish to give you kudos for remaining here on this thread, despite being the sole voice (lately) of SS, and maintaining your charity.

There are many who cannot do this, and will resort to sarcasm, innuendo and provocation.

So :bowdown::tiphat: to you!

 

[PRmerger]

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

And they couldn’t appeal to Scripture for the answer.

 

[alwayswill]

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.

instead of the word Christian I should have said come to faith in the God of Abraham, Isacc and Jacob

 

[PRmerger]

instead of the word Christian I should have said come to faith in the God of Abraham, Isacc and Jacob

I’m not following you here.

Can you please explain your argument, especially since the post you’re responding to was my response to pablope.

 

[alwayswill]

I’m not following you here.

Can you please explain your argument, especially since the post you’re responding to was my response to pablope.

Originally Posted by alwayswill View Post
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​

Originally Posted by pablope View Post
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?​

Originally Posted by PRmerger View Post
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.​

Originally Posted by PRmerger View Post
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.​

Originally Posted by alwayswill View Post
instead of the word Christian I should have said come to faith in the God of Abraham, Isacc and Jacob

 

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by alwayswill View Post
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​

Originally Posted by pablope View Post
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?​

Originally Posted by PRmerger View Post
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.​

Originally Posted by PRmerger View Post
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.​

Originally Posted by alwayswill View Post
instead of the word Christian I should have said come to faith in the God of Abraham, Isacc and Jacob

Sorry. Still not sure what you’re saying.

Let’s go back to the original proposition: you are saying that the bishops in Acts used Scripture to tell the Judaizers that new Christians did not need to be circumcised.

Right? Is that what you’re arguing?

 

[alwayswill]

Sorry. Still not sure what you’re saying.

Let’s go back to the original proposition: you are saying that the bishops in Acts used Scripture to tell the Judaizers that new Christians did not need to be circumcised.

Right? Is that what you’re arguing?

thank you for your kind words:
i do need to step away for a bit

 

[cominghome1966]

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.

I’ve provided a clear scripture that shows beyond any doubt that all male converts needed to be circumcised. No uncircumcised male could celebrate the Passover, and there was one law that applied to ALL.

I don’t see any exceptions there. Do you?

No, you don’t. Which means that you are arguing their leadership had some authority to interpret the scripture apart from what it plainly says.

You are arguing that they didn’t have to live by the scripture alone, that there was some authority that acted in concert with, yet ascended to, the scripture.

 

[alwayswill]

I’ve provided a clear scripture that shows beyond any doubt that all male converts needed to be circumcised. No uncircumcised male could celebrate the Passover, and there was one law that applied to ALL.

I don’t see any exceptions there. Do you?

No, you don’t. Which means that you are arguing their leadership had some authority to interpret the scripture apart from what it plainly says.

You are arguing that they didn’t have to live by the scripture alone, that there was some authority that acted in concert with, yet ascended to, the scripture.

Exodus 12:48-49

48 “A foreigner residing among you who wants to celebrate the Lord’s Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat it. 49 The same law applies both to the native-born and to the foreigner residing among you.”

As a foreigner : I may not want to celebrate the Jewish Passover:
Can I still believe in the God of Abraham. Issac , and Jacob?

Sola Scripture does not deny other authorities: see post 30

 

[PRmerger]

Sola Scripture does not deny other authorities: see post 30

Then what is the point of SS and its defection from the authority of the CC?

I don’t understand how someone can depart from the authority of the CC, claim SS, while also claiming that SS doesn’t depart from the authority of the CC.

 

[cominghome1966]

As a foreigner : I may not want to celebrate the Jewish Passover:
Can I still believe in the God of Abraham. Issac , and Jacob?

Sure, but if you don’t want to celebrate the Passover when the Old Covenant was in force, then you’re not in full communion with God’s covenant as it existed at that time.

 

[JimmyDFG]

Then what is the point of SS and its defection from the authority of the CC?

I don’t understand how someone can depart from the authority of the CC, claim SS, while also claiming that SS doesn’t depart from the authority of the CC.

A quick question, if I may ask. ( or maybe its an observation )
Didn’t a lot of the heresies come from what people thought the bible meant?

 

[PRmerger]

A quick question, if I may ask. ( or maybe its an observation )
Didn’t a lot of the heresies come from what people thought the bible meant?

Yes. Precisely.

When someone decides that he can determine for himself what Scripture means, in opposition to the Faith which gave him this Scripture, he is in danger of heresy.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Then what is the point of SS and its defection from the authority of the CC?

I don’t understand how someone can depart from the authority of the CC, claim SS, while also claiming that SS doesn’t depart from the authority of the CC.

They depart from the authority of the CC in one very important respect. They hold that SS is supreme OVER the teaching authority of the CC. IOW, “they” or in plain language, private judgement of what SS says will DETERMINE the truth of the teaching of the CC. This of course is problematic (to anyone not laboring under the error of SS) in that it obviously overthrows ALL Church authority in preference to private judgement.

So, in fine, Church teaching authority is “consulted” and, if it is found to be compatible with their own private judgement determination of Scriptural meaning, than they say they do not DEPART. But that is unreal.

The error of SS is due to an even greater error. The error of believing that the CC is a man-made institution (like their own ecclesial communities) rather than a Divine AND VISIBLE Church, headed by Jesus Christ.

This was the fundamental error of Luther. On the surface, where it is observable that mere sinners are leading the Church, it seems to follow logically that these sinners will lead the Church into error and worse. But they lack Faith in their King and the Holy Spirit who will safeguard and protect his bride the Church, even from sinful leaders.

The irony is that their lack of Faith has given them the EXACT kind of church they most fear. One that is man-made, led by sinners, and prone to errors and worse.

 

[spina1953]

It seems t me the Apostles had authority due to being filled with the Holy Spirit to teach and to preach the Good News Jesus taught the Apostles and who gave all authority to do so. Acts in the NT show how the early Church and the Apostles taught and preached that Good news, However, nothing was written down at that point at what we now call the NT., so no sola scriptura could be used since they were not teaching Jewish Religious practices but what Christ HImself taught and preached
All what the Apostles taught and preached was oral teachings of Christ, and what OT verses used only reinforced their teachings of Christ. There was not official Jewish canon of Scripture, nor was in some complete book since All Jewish scripture was in scroll form and not codext form. There also several different sects of Jews who had different interpretations of Jewish scriptures each competing with each other of meanings and how one had to live according to those Jewish laws and rituals, to which Jesus Himself as well as the Apostles themselves preached against because it was not the spirit of the law but the ridginest of the law that Jewish religious authorities stressed. The Apostles and those they appointed stuck with the teachings of Christ and what was not later written down was still reached and taught, but none of the NT writers ever thought that what they did write would be some alcompassing final authority above what Christ and the Apostles taught and was passed on to the Church Christ founded that everyone could just read and understand without the aid of an authority to say what Scripture said and meant in order to be saved. If sola scriptura was the thing is was never used by Christ Himself nor by the Apostles and those they appointed, which means sola scriptura was never accepted by the Early Church.

 

[alwayswill]

It seems t me the Apostles had authority due to being filled with the Holy Spirit to teach and to preach the Good News Jesus taught the Apostles and who gave all authority to do so. Acts in the NT show how the early Church and the Apostles taught and preached that Good news, However, nothing was written down at that point at what we now call the NT., so no sola scriptura could be used since they were not teaching Jewish Religious practices but what Christ HImself taught and preached

All what the Apostles taught and preached was oral teachings of Christ, and what OT verses used only reinforced their teachings of Christ. There was not official Jewish canon of Scripture, nor was in some complete book since All Jewish scripture was in scroll form and not codext form. There also several different sects of Jews who had different interpretations of Jewish scriptures each competing with each other of meanings and how one had to live according to those Jewish laws and rituals, to which Jesus Himself as well as the Apostles themselves preached against because it was not the spirit of the law but the ridginest of the law that Jewish religious authorities stressed. The Apostles and those they appointed stuck with the teachings of Christ and what was not later written down was still reached and taught, but none of the NT writers ever thought that what they did write would be some alcompassing  final authority above what Christ and the Apostles taught and was passed on to the Church Christ founded that everyone could just read and understand without the aid of an authority to say what Scripture said and meant in order to be saved. If sola scriptura was the thing is was never used by Christ Himself nor by the Apostles and those they appointed, which means sola scriptura was never accepted by the Early Church.

once again:
"Thirdly, it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken. "

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—

---

And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church

 

[PRmerger]

once again:
"Thirdly, it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken. "

And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church

Amen!

And if the Holy Spirit guided and enlightened the Church…you believe that the Church was given the charism of infallibility.

 

[alwayswill]

Amen!

And if the Holy Spirit guided and enlightened the Church…you believe that the Church was given the charism of infallibility.

no : I don’t believe God using a person or institution to accomplish His Will requires that
person or institution to have the charism of infallibility.

 

[PRmerger]

no : I don’t believe God using a person or institution to accomplish His Will requires that
person or institution to have the charism of infallibility.

Perhaps if you articulated what you believe the charism of infallibility is…and how it differs from God using a person or institution to accomplish His Will…that would be helpful.

 

[Duane1966]

no : I don’t believe God using a person or institution to accomplish His Will requires that
person or institution to have the charism of infallibility.

So while the Scriptures were being written by fallible people, error could be part of the Scriptures. If they were not infallible while writing, how do we know they got the God-breathed Scriptures correct?

God-breathed them, but they were still dictated by fallible people, so in your paradigm, the Scriptures could contain error.