Question for Bible-Only Christians

[Fred_4]

I’m curious. When I was a Bible-only Christian I never thought about this, so I’m wondering how you see it.

In Genesis 17 God makes it pretty clear to Abraham that all males must be circumcized or be guilty of breaking the covenant. Even the slaves.

Then in Acts 15 Peter says that it isn’t necessary.

If the Scriptures are the only authority given us, how could the Church have done away with the requirement of circumcision?

 

[Pwrlftr]

I’m curious. When I was a Bible-only Christian I never thought about this, so I’m wondering how you see it.

In Genesis 17 God makes it pretty clear to Abraham that all males must be circumcized or be guilty of breaking the covenant. Even the slaves.

Then in Acts 15 Peter says that it isn’t necessary.

If the Scriptures are the only authority given us, how could the Church have done away with the requirement of circumcision?

Sola scriptura wouldn’t be the norm when the “scriptura” was beign developed.

 

[justinthemartyr]

Sola scriptura wouldn’t be the norm when the “scriptura” was beign developed.

you didn’t answer the question at hand.

What authority did Peter have to remove the command of God for circumcision? If Peter were just another Christian, how could he supercede scripture(OT) and law?

 

[Pwrlftr]

you didn’t answer the question at hand.

What authority did Peter have to remove the command of God for circumcision? If Peter were just another Christian, how could he supercede scripture(OT) and law?

The question was:
If the Scriptures are the only authority given us, how could the Church have done away with the requirement of circumcision?

My answer is that sola scriptura wasn’t the norm while the scriptura was being developed.

As to your question which isn’t the same as the OP asked, Peter and the other 11 were apostles…you know, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

 

[epostle]

Circumcision was never done away with, for baptism is the NEW CIRCUMCISION which fulfils the law of the Old Covenant.
1 Peter 3:21 - Peter expressly writes that “baptism, corresponding to Noah’s ark, now saves you; not as a removal of dirt from the body, but for a clear conscience. “ Hence, the verse demonstrates that baptism is salvific (it saves us), and deals with the interior life of the person (purifying the conscience, like Heb. 10:22), and not the external life (removing dirt from the body). Many scholars believe the phrase “not as a removal of dirt from the body” is in reference to the Jewish ceremony of circumcision (but, at a minimum, shows that baptism is not about the exterior, but interior life). Baptism is now the “circumcision” of the new Covenant (Col. 2:11-12), but it, unlike the old circumcision, actually saves us, as Noah and his family were saved by water.

Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 - these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant - Col 2:11-12 - however, baptism is the new “circumcision” for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults.
scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html

 

[moondweller]

I’m curious. When I was a Bible-only Christian I never thought about this, so I’m wondering how you see it.

In Genesis 17 God makes it pretty clear to Abraham that all males must be circumcized or be guilty of breaking the covenant. Even the slaves.

Then in Acts 15 Peter says that it isn’t necessary.

If the Scriptures are the only authority given us, how could the Church have done away with the requirement of circumcision?

Scripture differentiates between the “circumcised” (Jews) and the “uncircumcised” (Gentiles). Circumcision was binding on the physical seed of Abraham, through Isaac and Jacob. But the Church Christ Himself has been building since Pentecost is made up of the spiritual seed of AbrahamGal. 3:29 “And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring (seed), heirs according to promise.”“The Church” didn’t do away with circumcision, circumcision never could save anyone. Salvation was/is always based on faith, even for the circumcised.Rom 9:30-32 "What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at {that} law. Why? Because {they did} not {pursue it} by faith, but as though {it were} by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone,"Ironically, because of their lack of understanding of the Scriptures, many Gentiles are trying to pursue salvation by works.

Your confusion is not “Bible only,” but “faith alone.” Which is totally Biblical.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

I’m curious. When I was a Bible-only Christian I never thought about this, so I’m wondering how you see it.

In Genesis 17 God makes it pretty clear to Abraham that all males must be circumcized or be guilty of breaking the covenant. Even the slaves.

Then in Acts 15 Peter says that it isn’t necessary.

If the Scriptures are the only authority given us, how could the Church have done away with the requirement of circumcision?

Gen 17 addresses the old covenant, Acts 15 addresses the new covenant. its that simple.

 

[epostle]

Your confusion is not “Bible only,” but “faith alone.” Which is totally Biblical.

Justification by faith alone is totally unbiblical, and Protestants cannot reconcile this man-made doctrine with James 2:28, “we are not saved by faith alone.” It is clear and explicit.

Protestants constantly confuse “works of the law” with “good works” They are totally different words with different meanings…

Rom. 3:20,28; Gal. 2:16 - Paul’s phrase for “works of the law” in the Greek is “ergon nomou” which means the Mosaic law or Torah and refers to the teachings (legal, moral) and works (ceremonial) that gave the Jews the knowledge of sin, but not an escape from sin. We have further proof of this from the Dead Sea Scrolls which provide the Hebrew equivalent (“hrvt ysm”) meaning “deeds of the law,” or Mosaic law. James in James 2 does not use “ergon nomou.” He uses “ergois agathois.”

Therefore, Paul’s “works of the law” and James’ “works” are entirely different types of works. Again, they could never contradict each other because the Scriptures are the inspired word of God.

Love ripped from faith is faith of the flesh, and a faith that cannot comprend that Jesus is the Bread that came down from heaven. Such a faith concludes that the bible is the bread came down from heaven. His Body and Blood, in the Eucharistic Meal, is God’s greatest gift to the Church. Jesus said he is the Bread come down from heaven four times!!!John 6:35,41,48,51

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

I think James is simpy speaking about active faith, Eph 2:10.

God Bless.
daniel

 

[Catholic_Dude]

The question was:
If the Scriptures are the only authority given us, how could the Church have done away with the requirement of circumcision?

My answer is that sola scriptura wasn’t the norm while the scriptura was being developed.

As to your question which isn’t the same as the OP asked, Peter and the other 11 were apostles…you know, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

You put yourself between a rock and a hard place because what you are admitting is that the Apostles did not go by Sola Scriptura, and in fact no Christian at that time (and for an indefinite time afterwards) had the “New Testament” to consult. However some time later Christians became bound by Sola Scriptura?

The Bible doesnt even say when, if ever, Divine Revelation via Scriptures has ended (ie when no more books are going to be added).

 

[SyCarl]

Scripture alone has never applied at the time that revelation was being inscripurated. The original command for circumsion was given to Abraham orally and later recorded in scripture. While the contents of the New Testament were being revealed and recorded no one has ever said that only oral teaching was available. However that oral teaching has now been recorded in scripture.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Scripture alone has never applied at the time that revelation was being inscripurated. The original command for circumsion was given to Abraham orally and later recorded in scripture. While the contents of the New Testament were being revealed and recorded no one has ever said that only oral teaching was available. However that oral teaching has now been recorded in scripture.

A few problems here:

1. Abraham didnt go by Scripture Alone, in fact Scripture didnt exist until Moses.
2. The fact is Christians were not going around consulting the “New Testament” in the early days, which is why the Council of Jerusalem had to take place. The fact a council took place demolishes the concept of Sola Scriptura right there.
3. There is nothing in the Bible that indicates what percentage of oral teaching has now been recorded in Scripture. Worse yet, nothing in Scripture says the canon is closed or that divine revelation has ended.

 

[SyCarl]

A few problems here:

1. Abraham didnt go by Scripture Alone, in fact Scripture didnt exist until Moses.
2. The fact is Christians were not going around consulting the “New Testament” in the early days, which is why the Council of Jerusalem had to take place. The fact a council took place demolishes the concept of Sola Scriptura right there.
3. There is nothing in the Bible that indicates what percentage of oral teaching has now been recorded in Scripture. Worse yet, nothing in Scripture says the canon is closed or that divine revelation has ended.

1. And God told Moses to write it in a book and from then on it was inscripurated.
2. However they did go around consulting the books of the Old Testament. This was still a time of revelation and incripuration. Scripture alone does not apply in such time.
3. I think that Jude pretty effectively tells us that revelation has ceased. He tells us that the faith was revealed once for all.

Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.
(Jude 1:3 NASB)

 

[MrS]

I think James is simpy speaking about active faith, Eph 2:10.

God Bless.
daniel

so… “… we are not saved by active faith alone…”

 

[Catholic_Dude]

1. And God told Moses to write it in a book and from then on it was inscripurated.

Irrelevant. The point is salvation history was already in progress hundreds of years before anything was officially written down.

1. However they did go around consulting the books of the Old Testament. This was still a time of revelation and incripuration.

The fact is a council had to step in and officially declare dogma, the OT was not explicitly clear on this issue. Thus an authoritative interpreter/teacher in the form of Bishops is required.

Scripture alone does not apply in such time.

That hurts your position, not mine. In fact you would have to prove there was a time when SS would take over, as well as the time it did.

There is nothing in the Bible that indicates what percentage of oral teaching has now been recorded in Scripture. Worse yet, nothing in Scripture says the canon is closed or that divine revelation has ended.

1. I think that Jude pretty effectively tells us that revelation has ceased. He tells us that the faith was revealed once for all.

(1) He nowhere indicates what percentage of oral teaching was written down, and Jd 1:3 says nothing about writing. Further he quotes from 2 Apocryphal books.

(2) Nothing in that passage rules out developments (eg Council of Jerusalem) or Prophecy (1 Cor 14). Also it assumes Jude was the last book to be written and that the rest of the Apostles were dead, yet that cant be proven.

 

[Pwrlftr]

You put yourself between a rock and a hard place because what you are admitting is that the Apostles did not go by Sola Scriptura, and in fact no Christian at that time (and for an indefinite time afterwards) had the “New Testament” to consult. However some time later Christians became bound by Sola Scriptura?

The Bible doesnt even say when, if ever, Divine Revelation via Scriptures has ended (ie when no more books are going to be added).

Sola scriptura would not be the norm when the scriptura was being developed, I don’t know how much plainer I can say it. It’s not putting myself between a rock and a hard place, it’s just a fact.

 

[holy_wood]

Sola scriptura would not be the norm when the scriptura was being developed, I don’t know how much plainer I can say it. It’s not putting myself between a rock and a hard place, it’s just a fact.

So when did sola scriptura take over, and who determined what books were inspired?

 

[ralphinal]

Is it fair to ask how Peter had the authority to make the change?

I agree that there is no sola scriptura possible when there was no scriptura. It is therefore logical that this was not a teaching of the early church. In fact, there is proof that when heretics used a similar doctrine to defend their positions, it was scandelous.

 

[Pax]

Sola scriptura would not be the norm when the scriptura was being developed, I don’t know how much plainer I can say it. It’s not putting myself between a rock and a hard place, it’s just a fact.

This is a statement on your part. The questions posed to you are reasonable. You really need to be able to prove your position by way of scripture. Your position is rooted in sola scriptura so your position should be expressly supported and taught in scripture. Scripture must tell us the answers to the questions posed to you.

 

[Pwrlftr]

This is a statement on your part. The questions posed to you are reasonable. You really need to be able to prove your position by way of scripture. Your position is rooted in sola scriptura so your position should be expressly supported and taught in scripture. Scripture must tell us the answers to the questions posed to you.

What question do you want answered?

The original post was based on a false premise. Of course most of the catholics here could care-a-less about that but regardless of the blinders you and others choose to wear, the OP was answered.