Sola scriptura advocates: Acts 15, & doctrinal guidance?

[joe370]

Sola scriptura advocates, I was just wondering: why, in Acts 15, did Paul and Barnabas (who were appointed) - defer to the church, as opposed to sacred scripture alone, for doctrinal guidance?

Acts 15 - "Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. The church sent them on their way…When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them. "

 

[ckempston]

Sola scriptura advocates, I was just wondering: why, in Acts 15, did Paul and Barnabas (who were appointed) - defer to the church, as opposed to sacred scripture alone, for doctrinal guidance?

Acts 15 - "Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. The church sent them on their way…When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them. "

None of the New Testament had been written at this point and all the Apostles were still alive. Not sure it would be reasonable to expect Paul and Barnabas to do anything else.

Edit to add: also interesting at this point is that James is the clear leader.

 

[beth40n2]

The Bible as we know it was not canonized until the 4th century. Anytime Paul or anyone else in the New Testament refers to the scritures, they would be referring to the Old Testament.

 

[Edmundus1581]

None of the New Testament had been written at this point and all the Apostles were still alive. Not sure it would be reasonable to expect Paul and Barnabas to do anything else.

All true, but after setting the example, in numerous places, of teaching with their own authority, do the Apostles not say “but we are writing a complete account of our teaching, and after we die, that will be the basis for all doctrine”? Without that, is it not reasonable to assume that they intended the Church to follow their own example, of teaching with authority, particularly through their successors - the bishops?

 

[joe370]

So you are suggesting that the practice sola scriptura, (by virtue of the fact that the New Testament had yet to be written at this point) - could not have worked at this particular juncture, and therefore was not taught by the apostles?

Paul was an apostle; why wouldn’t he just render a decision?

None of the New Testament had been written at this point and all the Apostles were still alive. Not sure it would be reasonable to expect Paul and Barnabas to do anything else.

Edit to add: also interesting at this point is that James is the clear leader.

 

[joe370]

All true, but after setting the example, in numerous places, of teaching with their own authority, do the Apostles not say “but we are writing a complete account of our teaching, and after we die, that will be the basis for all doctrine”? Without that, is it not reasonable to assume that they intended the Church to follow their own example, of teaching with authority, particularly through their successors - the bishops?

Seems reasonable…

 

[joe370]

The Bible as we know it was not canonized until the 4th century. Anytime Paul or anyone else in the New Testament refers to the scritures, they would be referring to the Old Testament.

I agree, with a few exceptions…

 

[agent_grey]

I have learned over the years that to ask a Sola scripture advocate something is like asking a special needs child a question on calculous.

 

[JohnnyReb]

I have learned over the years that to ask a Sola scripture advocate something is like asking a special needs child a question on calculous.

Such condescending remarks are not necessary and make for BAD apologetics.

I would answer the question with a question. “Did Bereans just accept what Paul taught them based on Paul’s authority, or did they examine the scriptures?”

 

[joe370]

Hey JohnnyReb, I agree with you regarding the condescending remark, after all, we are all brothers and sisters in Christ, regardless of denomination.

They searched the Old Testament Scriptures day after day to see if Paul and Silas were teaching the truth. But, why, in Acts 15, did Paul and Barnabas (who were appointed) - defer to the church, as opposed to searching scripture alone, for doctrinal guidance?

 

[pablope]

Sola scriptura advocates, I was just wondering: why, in Acts 15, did Paul and Barnabas (who were appointed) - defer to the church, as opposed to sacred scripture alone, for doctrinal guidance?

Acts 15 - "Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. The church sent them on their way…When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them. "

Because St Paul and Barnabas exercised humility and had respect for authority, and they both recognized the primacy and authority of Peter, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit for the correct doctrinal guidance, which was arrived at in the decision to do away with circumcision for the gentiles.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Hey JohnnyReb, I agree with you regarding the condescending remark, after all, we are all brothers and sisters in Christ, regardless of denomination.

They searched the Old Testament Scriptures day after day to see if Paul and Silas were teaching the truth. But, why, in Acts 15, did Paul and Barnabas (who were appointed) - defer to the church, as opposed to searching scripture alone, for doctrinal guidance?

Thanks Joe I agree with you about that.

I do believe the referred to the Holy Spirit as well “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us”

Two things to note 1) The proclaimation they gave is not permanently binding. Do we still obstain from meat with blood in it? No. Paul goes on to give instructions about eating meat sacrificed to idols later on in his letter to the Corinthians.

1. Its not too problematic for Sola Scriptura advocates because the Apostles sought the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who will never speak in contradiction to his word (or word that was being revealed)

 

[elvisman]

None of the New Testament had been written at this point and all the Apostles were still alive. Not sure it would be reasonable to expect Paul and Barnabas to do anything else.

Edit to add: also interesting at this point is that James is the clear leader.

WRONG.
Not only James NOT the “clear leader” - the text pretty much shows that the leader is non other than Peter. He is the one who gets up first to speak and make a decision that James, Bishop of Jerusalem, concurs with.

**As for your point about the Scriptures not having been written yet - you just proved the error of Sola Scriptura. You’re absolutely correct - there was not NT at the time so the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is false because the Early Christians didn’**t have a Bible.

Not only that - there is also the question of the Bereans which all Sola Scripturists LOVE to throw at Catholics. They** studied the Scriptures (OT) to insure that Paul’s oral teaching (Tradition) was in line with what was written. Ultimately they believed a truth that was not** explicitly there:
The fact that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Messiah.

Lastly - they only had the OT to glean their information from. Does this mean that the Holy Spirit - who knows ALL things in eternity - had no idea there would be a New Testament written down? Sola Scriptura for the Bereans would have meant the Old Testament only - and we know that this is false. because it would have meant a total rejection of the Gospel - which hadn’t been written yet.

 

[joe370]

Hey Johnny…

I do believe the referred to the Holy Spirit as well “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us”

Absolutely! Paul and Barnabas deferred to the church, and the HS guided the church in the right direction, but I am told by my sola scriptura friends that we are to defer to scripture alone for edification and doctrinal guidance, as opposed to the church, such as the catholic church, etc.

Two things to note 1) The proclaimation they gave is not permanently binding. Do we still obstain from meat with blood in it? No. Paul goes on to give instructions about eating meat sacrificed to idols later on in his letter to the Corinthians.

I agree, but it was still, in Paul’s mind, necessary to take it to the church in Jerusalem, where Peter and James were, as opposed to making a definitive decision on his own, by simply searching the scriptures, as he was moved by the holy spirit. Why wouldn’t the church in Antioch simply resolve the matter?

1. Its not too problematic for Sola Scriptura advocates because the Apostles sought the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who will never speak in contradiction to his word (or word that was being revealed)

Agreed! As a church (leadership) - they sought the guidance of the HS; that makes sense to me. However, if scripture alone (sola scriptura) - was the Christians sole rule of faith, then, as it is today for SS advocates, then why didn’t Paul and Barnabas, and the rest of the leaders at the church in Antioch, simply search the scriptures for the answer, as the Bereans did, and as sola scriptura advocates do today?

I suppose my point is: I don’t believe there is evidence that the 1st century Christians embraced sola scriptura, for the simple fact that the holy bible did not exist. If that is true, then sola scriptura must be a tradition that does not have its origin in Jesus or His apostles; would that be a fair assessment?

 

[elvisman]

Such condescending remarks are not necessary and make for BAD apologetics.

I would answer the question with a question. “Did Bereans just accept what Paul taught them based on Paul’s authority, or did they examine the scriptures?”

Please see post #13 . . .

 

[SyCarl]

WRONG.
Not only James NOT the “clear leader” - the text pretty much shows that the leader is non other than Peter. He is the one who gets up first to speak and make a decision that James, Bishop of Jerusalem, concurs with.

As for your point about the Scriptures not having been written yet - you just proved the error of Sola Scriptura. You’re absolutely correct - there was not NT at the time so the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is false because the Early Christians didn’t have a Bible.

Not only that - there is also the question of the Bereans which all Sola Scripturists LOVE to throw at Catholics. They** studied the Scriptures (OT) to insure that Paul’s oral teaching (Tradition) was in line with what was written. Ultimately they believed a truth that was not** explicitly there:
The fact that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Messiah.

Lastly - they only had the OT to glean their information from. Does this mean that the Holy Spirit - who knows ALL things in eternity - had no idea there would be a New Testament written down? Sola Scriptura for the Bereans would have meant the Old Testament only - and we know that this is false. because it would have meant a total rejection of the Gospel - which hadn’t been written yet.

You seem to be applying eisegesis to Acts 15 instead of exegesis.

The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. "And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? “But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”
(Act 15:6-11 NASB)

The meeting starts out with debate. The Peter gets up and asks why the Gentile Christians should be yoked with something the Jewish Christians couldn’t bear. It seems that he doesn’t think that anything should be required of the Gentiles. Is this where it ends and is this the result adopted? No.

All the people kept silent, and they were listening to Barnabas and Paul as they were relating what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. After they had stopped speaking, James answered, saying, "Brethren, listen to me. "Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name. "With this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written, ‘AFTER THESE THINGS I will return, AND I WILL REBUILD THE TABERNACLE OF DAVID WHICH HAS FALLEN, AND I WILL REBUILD ITS RUINS, AND I WILL RESTORE IT, SO THAT THE REST OF MANKIND MAY SEEK THE LORD, AND ALL THE GENTILES WHO ARE CALLED BY MY NAME,’ SAYS THE LORD, WHO MAKES THESE THINGS KNOWN FROM LONG AGO. "Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. “For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”
(Act 15:12-21 NASB)

After Peter speaks, they listen to Paul and Barnabas again. Finally James gets up and gives his judgement. Is it what Peter said? No. Instead of no extra requirements James decides they must abstain from things offered to idols, fornication, what is strangled and from blood. Peter’s position is not the one adopted and it is James’ decision which is sent back to Antioch.

 

[Libertarian_FL]

I don’t care I go by the life and teachings of Christ only, anything else is the spoken words andwritings of effectively clerics of no special standing who went beyond the simple command to spread the Gospel, which were to all His people including laity. And Paul was not even an Apostle did He get taught BY Jesus? No.

And even the Gospel accounts arr questionable since many key points don’t line up with historical facts. So why bother with the non-Gospel NT and Revelations the nuttiest book of them all.

I would argue we need Sola Scriptura as using it alongside the teachings and words of Christ its all we have to go on that is likely truthful enough.Its a shame Jesus didn’t write his own Gospel it would have solved lots of problems.

But I have my critics.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

IAnd Paul was not even an Apostle did He get taught BY Jesus? No.

"Paul an apostle–not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead… "Gal 1:1

God bless

 

[elvisman]

You seem to be applying eisegesis to Acts 15 instead of exegesis.

The meeting starts out with debate. The Peter gets up and asks why the Gentile Christians should be yoked with something the Jewish Christians couldn’t bear. It seems that he doesn’t think that anything should be required of the Gentiles. Is this where it ends and is this the result adopted? No.

After Peter speaks, they listen to Paul and Barnabas again. Finally James gets up and gives his judgement. Is it what Peter said? No. Instead of no extra requirements James decides they must abstain from things offered to idols, fornication, what is strangled and from blood. Peter’s position is not the one adopted and it is James’ decision which is sent back to Antioch.

Sy - if I got up durng a meeting at work and said, "I think we should do what the President said but I think we should add this one additional clause" - does that make me the president? Absolutely NOT. This is the failure of Sola Scriptura - the fact that not every single word was written down. Peter is clearly the leader in the Gospels - as Jesus placed and appointed him. Only those who read Acts in a wodden, literal sense would glean the meaning you do.**

Your folly is that you simply do not understand how the Church works nor how councils progress. Not every sinbgle thing declared is stated by the Pope. Acts 15 no more illustrates that James was in charge than does Exodus proclaim that Moses had epilepsy.

My conclusions are not solely based on Acts - but on the whole of the NT. If your position is to ignore the Gospels and other letters of the NT as they apply to Peter as the leader, then it is YOU who are applying your own interpretations to the text.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Please see post #13 . . .

While the Bereans believed a truth that was not there, they believed a truth that did not contradict what was there either. From the Protestant/non Catholic perspective, comparing the two situations is comparing apples to oranges. Prior to the completion and solidification of the canon, God was still revealing scriptures and the deposit of faith to the Church. Afterwards, in our times, SS advocates believe that God has revealed all that is necessary to believe for salvation.