Question for Bible-Only Christians

[pauliztarza]

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?

Jesus circumcised our hearts and this rite, like baptism, is not basis for salvation.

Key is to be allowed to go to Heaven,and baptism and circumcision are not basis for that. It is faith in CJ and acceptance of Him as your personal master and savior.

 

[Fred_4]

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.

Except that the early Church had scriptures… what we know as the Old Testament. These are what Paul refers to in 2nd Tim 3:16 and other places.

If the early Church didn’t hold to sola scriptura with the Scriptures that they had at that time, at what point did they decide to do so? Please cite the (presumably) New Testament passage which defines this. After all, if the Scriptures, and only the Scriptures have authority… the Scriptures should say so.

My OP did not have a false premise, that I can see. Please demonstrate that fallacy of my syllogism. As far as I can tell, the man-made doctrine of sola scriptura is logically self-refuting. Your comments, please. Thanks!

 

[Fred_4]

Jesus circumcised our hearts and this rite, like baptism, is not basis for salvation.

Key is to be allowed to go to Heaven,and baptism and circumcision are not basis for that. It is faith in CJ and acceptance of Him as your personal master and savior.

First Peter 3:21 clearly states that baptism saves. Your “acceptance of CJ as personal master and savior” as sole requirement for salvation is unbiblical.

 

[MrS]

Jesus circumcised our hearts and this rite, like baptism, is not basis for salvation.

Key is to be allowed to go to Heaven,and baptism and circumcision are not basis for that. It is faith in CJ and acceptance of Him as your personal master and savior.

Bible quote??

I suggest 1st Peter…"…baptism now saves you…"

or “… unless you are baptized by water and the spirit…”

so you believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist found only in the Catholic Church?? Praise God. You have accepted Him and all He said, all He taught, all He swore on oath.

.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Except that the early Church had scriptures… what we know as the Old Testament. These are what Paul refers to in 2nd Tim 3:16 and other places.

If the early Church didn’t hold to sola scriptura with the Scriptures that they had at that time, at what point did they decide to do so? Please cite the (presumably) New Testament passage which defines this. After all, if the Scriptures, and only the Scriptures have authority… the Scriptures should say so.

My OP did not have a false premise, that I can see. Please demonstrate that fallacy of my syllogism. As far as I can tell, the man-made doctrine of sola scriptura is logically self-refuting. Your comments, please. Thanks!

You have no understanding of sola scriptura which is evidenced by statements you make such as:

“If the Scriptures are the only authority given us…”

and

“After all, if the Scriptures, and only the Scriptures have authority…”

If you want to understand and/or discuss sola scritura maybe you should start with one of the many confessional creeds such as the Westminster Confession of Faith or the London Baptist Confession.

Many of the Catholics at CAF go ballistic if a non-Catholic mis-represents the Catholic faith but apparently see no harm in mis-representing the faith of others.

In your first post you said:
OP:

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 doesn’t say that the scripture is the only authority or that it has been the rule of the church during the time period when the scriptures were being developed (you can’t sola the scriptura when it isn’t fully developed) and this is the false premise your post is based on.

You say you were a “Bible alone” believer and while that may very well be it is certain you didn’t believe in sola scriptura.

 

[Fred_4]

If you want to understand and/or discuss sola scritura maybe you should start with one of the many confessional creeds such as the Westminster Confession of Faith or the London Baptist Confession.

Many of the Catholics at CAF go ballistic if a non-Catholic mis-represents the Catholic faith but apparently see no harm in mis-representing the faith of others.

Sola scriptura doesn’t say that the scripture is the only authority or that it has been the rule of the church during the time period when the scriptures were being developed (you can’t sola the scriptura when it isn’t fully developed) and this is the false premise your post is based on.

You say you were a “Bible alone” believer and while that may very well be it is certain you didn’t believe in sola scriptura.

Would you care to explain the tenets of your creeds to me? I certainly did not mean to misrepresent yours, or anyone else’s viewpoint. Please tell me what sola scriptura says and what it is I used to believe. Thanks!

 

[jmcrae]

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.

What public event, made manifest to the whole Church of God, signified this change-over?

Upon what date, or over what period of time, did this event occur?

 

[Pwrlftr]

What public event, made manifest to the whole Church of God, signified this change-over?

Upon what date, or over what period of time, did this event occur?

The death of the last apostle I suppose would be the event.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Would you care to explain the tenets of your creeds to me? I certainly did not mean to misrepresent yours, or anyone else’s viewpoint. Please tell me what sola scriptura says and what it is I used to believe. Thanks!

Google the either the Westminster Confession of Faith or the London Baptist Confession and read the section on scripture. That should get you off and running.

 

[Fred_4]

Google the either the Westminster Confession of Faith or the London Baptist Confession and read the section on scripture. That should get you off and running.

Thanks! I did. Far as I can see, I was correct in my understanding of sola scriptura. Who wrote that westminster thing anyway, and by what authority? I liked the article X: only the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture is the final arbiter of religious controversies? That’s worked well for you Protestants, hasn’t it?

 

[Pwrlftr]

Thanks! I did. Far as I can see, I was correct in my understanding of sola scriptura. Who wrote that westminster thing anyway, and by what authority? I liked the article X: only the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture is the final arbiter of religious controversies? That’s worked well for you Protestants, hasn’t it?

You are now an expert on sola scriptura. I wish you well.

 

[Rightlydivide]

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?

In Genesis, God is speaking to who? All mankind? No. The Jews. Does circumcision apply to Gentiles? No.
What happens in Acts 10? Peter’s vision, directly from God of course.
Peter has had that vision and has shared it with the church but the church as a whole, not just Peter for goodness sakes, with James the brother of the Lord making the final judgement, makes a decision, and they do quote applicable scripture of course, to say what exactly Gentile Christians must follow to be a Christian.
They are interpreting the scripture to be sure but the original verse you are referring to NEVER applied to Gentiles. The church had the good sense to correctly interpret a verse which is pretty easy to interpret…in hindsight of course!
Also, who claims the Jews were Bible only? Just curious.

 

[Pax]

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).

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

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.

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.

It has not been established that there is anything wrong with the OP. It is simply a couple of observations that need to be reconciled and there is a question associated with the observations. Likewise, Catholic on this thread apparently do care and are in dialogue with you to see if there position or your position has any greater merit relative to the OP. I do not have blinders on…nor do I accuse you of having them on either. I am not satisfied with your responses even though you may find them sufficient.

I have quoted in this post the specific questions that were asked that I would like to see you specifically address. I think they are reasonable.

 

[Pax]

In Genesis, God is speaking to who? All mankind? No. The Jews. Does circumcision apply to Gentiles? No.
What happens in Acts 10? Peter’s vision, directly from God of course.
Peter has had that vision and has shared it with the church but the church as a whole, not just Peter for goodness sakes, with James the brother of the Lord making the final judgement, makes a decision, and they do quote applicable scripture of course, to say what exactly Gentile Christians must follow to be a Christian.
They are interpreting the scripture to be sure but the original verse you are referring to NEVER applied to Gentiles. The church had the good sense to correctly interpret a verse which is pretty easy to interpret…in hindsight of course!
Also, who claims the Jews were Bible only? Just curious.

This is partially true, but it is important to remember that you could not be a member of the OT family of God without circumcision. In The New Covenant the barrier between Jews and Gentiles is lifted and we have a New Covenant family of God that is entered into through baptism as opposed to circumcision.

I hope this helps.

 

[Rightlydivide]

This is partially true, but it is important to remember that you could not be a member of the OT family of God without circumcision. In The New Covenant the barrier between Jews and Gentiles is lifted and we have a New Covenant family of God that is entered into through baptism as opposed to circumcision.

I hope this helps.

Lets develop that just a little…If baptism is the entry to the New Covenant, what was John baptizing for prior to anyone hearing about a New Covenant?

 

[Roy5]

I’m not a fundamentalist as many things in the Bible are allegorical, etc.

However, it's clear that the New Testament supercedes the Old Testament among Christians. The Torah (see, for example, Lev. 24-26 and Deut.21-24) has all sorts of laws that we properly ignore. 

 In the New Testament see Acts 15 for an early controversy re circumcision, as well as Paul's writings, as in Romans 4:9-12.

 

[Pax]

John was involved in a Jewish practice that was a baptism of repentance. One did not receive entrance into the NT family of God, and one did not receive the Holy Spirit when receiving John’s baptism. Trinitarian baptism was introduced by Jesus and was made mandatory when he told the disciples after he had risen from the dead that “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” [Matt 28:18-20]

This contrast becomes even more clear in the Book of Acts when Paul meets some of John’s disciples. The following passage is quite instructive:

Acts 19:1-7

“WHILE APOLLOS was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve of them in all.”

I hope this helps.

 

[Pwrlftr]

It has not been established that there is anything wrong with the OP.

The first post is built on a strawman at worst and a misunderstanding of sola scriptura at best.

Didn’t I already post this? Maybe you missed it…
OP:

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?

The Scriptures aren’t the only authority given us and in particular, during the time of prophecy (Jesus, Apostles, etc.) Scripture isn’t the only authority. How can you “sola” something that is being developed. The first post in this thread is based on a false premise. It’s that simple.

pax:

It is simply a couple of observations that need to be reconciled and there is a question associated with the observations. Likewise, Catholic on this thread apparently do care and are in dialogue with you to see if there position or your position has any greater merit relative to the OP. I do not have blinders on…nor do I accuse you of having them on either. I am not satisfied with your responses even though you may find them sufficient.

I have quoted in this post the specific questions that were asked that I would like to see you specifically address. I think they are reasonable.

The other questions you “want” answered have nothing to do with the OP.

Until you accept the OP is built on a false premise (which should be painfully obvious to all involved) there really isn’t much point in continuing. In other words if I can’t convince you of the most basic concept of sola scriptura and how it’s been twisted in this post I won’t be able to convince you of anything.

As an analogy, it would be similar to you convincing someone that you don’t worship Mary when they are convinced you do.

 

[Rightlydivide]

John was involved in a Jewish practice that was a baptism of repentance. One did not receive entrance into the NT family of God, and one did not receive the Holy Spirit when receiving John’s baptism. Trinitarian baptism was introduced by Jesus and was made mandatory when he told the disciples after he had risen from the dead that “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” [Matt 28:18-20]

This contrast becomes even more clear in the Book of Acts when Paul meets some of John’s disciples. The following passage is quite instructive:

Acts 19:1-7

“WHILE APOLLOS was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve of them in all.”

I hope this helps.

So it is your contention that NT baptism starts in Matthew 28?
Lets go a little deeper. Did the Apostles go and baptize Gentiles after Matthew 28? When did they start doing this?

 

[Pax]

Powerlifter,

I respect your effort here…I did read it…I just don’t find it satisfactory. You rightly contend that there was no sola scriptura prior to the writing of all the scriptures. The problem is that you apparently contend that all authority disappeared once scripture was written, assembled, and canonized. There is absolutely no evidence for this proposition any where in scripture. Moreover, the idea of sola scriptura and the demise of Tradition and the Church as coexisting authorities did not arise until the Reformation. Please answer the questions that I am concerned about and dispel my doubts.