Sola scriptura advocates: Acts 15, & doctrinal guidance?

[AmateurPianist]

Good question. I cannot seem to pin down a definitive answer from sola scriptura advocates. Perhaps you could provide a definition?

Well now I am confused. Are you proposing that Acts 15 and “Sola Scriptura” are contradictory? If not, then why are you asking this question? If so, then you must have a definition of Sola Scriptura that you feel contradicts Acts 15.

 

[guanophore]

Well now I am confused. Are you proposing that Acts 15 and “Sola Scriptura” are contradictory? If not, then why are you asking this question? If so, then you must have a definition of Sola Scriptura that you feel contradicts Acts 15.

The most commonly agreed upon definition is that Scripture is the final authority in matters of faith and morals. Given that, why did Paul and Barnabas go to Jerusalem? Paul was probably more well versed in the Scripture than all the rest of the Apostles put together, why did he not just prove from scripture the Truth?

 

[JohnnyReb]

I love you guys. I feel like one man defending his hill against and army of invaders. Its so flattering.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Curious, what definition of “Sola Scriptura” are you using to assume that this passage of Scripture and “Sola Scriptura” are in conflict. Of course I am assuming that to you they are in conflict by virtue of you raising this question.

You know I was thinking about this while at work tonight. Some people are strict SS people, whereas others like myself are more likely to say that we are Prima Scriptura, for scripture first (so other sources, like tradition, reason and experience, can aid in interpreting scripture).

 

[guanophore]

I love you guys. I feel like one man defending his hill against and army of invaders. Its so flattering.

You may be defending your hill alone on this thread, Johnny, but you are speaking for hundreds of thousands who espouse the same beliefs as you do. Many people come to CAF and read the threads but never post. They probably have some of the same objections you do to Sacred Tradition.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Johnny Reb, I have answered your challenges below. You by the way are the second person I have seen use that passage from Corinthians to proof text SS.

If they (the Corinthians) weren’t to go beyond what was written that would leave them a very small canon indeed. In fact it would leave them the OT.

Explain.

Mary never had other children after the Lord Jesus. She remained a perpetual virgin.

[BIBLEDRB]John 19:26-27[/BIBLEDRB]

If these other children did indeed come after Jesus, why did he entrust the care of his mother to an apostle, even the beloved apostle. That would have pissed off some siblings don’t you think?

Conjecture. Scriptural proof Por Favor.

**Purgatory **

[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 3:15[/BIBLEDRB]

Jesus died for our sins and his blood takes away our sin (Romans 5:8, Isaiah 53:5)

**Saved, in part, by good works. **

[BIBLEDRB]James 2:14-20[/BIBLEDRB]

Faith works itself in love. Paul teaches the same thing to the Thessalonians:

2 We always thank God for all of you and continually mention you in our prayers. 3 We remember before our God and Father your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ.

Both Paul and James say that faith is going to produce works of love. Faith is a living faith.

The church is founded on Peter.

[BIBLEDRB]Matt 16: 16-19[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]John 21:15-17[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Luke 22:31-32[/BIBLEDRB]

The Church is built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, which include, but is not limited to Peter.

In Matthew 7:24-28, Jesus compares putting his words into practice to a wise man who built his house on the rock.

Christ is called the spiritual rock in 1 Corinthians 10:4

 

[JohnnyReb]

You may be defending your hill alone on this thread, Johnny, but you are speaking for hundreds of thousands who espouse the same beliefs as you do. Many people come to CAF and read the threads but never post. They probably have some of the same objections you do to Sacred Tradition.

That’s probably true. Catholics might think I have some vandetta against the church. I don’t. I’m a confirmed Catholic, but my conversion was made in haste. I thought I understood the faith more than I did when I went through with it. Maybe one day I will return to the church. Part of me wishes I could be like “I found Rome, Thanks be to God” but there are some things you see here that I have a hard time accepting form the church. If the church (at least in my current view) erred in some teaching, SS becomes the only default option I have to turn to. I admit its a problematic way to approach truth sometimes. Its flaws were at the heart of my conversion to Rome. I will respond to other posts later.

Peace.

 

[AmateurPianist]

The most commonly agreed upon definition is that Scripture is the final authority in matters of faith and morals. Given that, why did Paul and Barnabas go to Jerusalem? Paul was probably more well versed in the Scripture than all the rest of the Apostles put together, why did he not just prove from scripture the Truth?

Thanks, that is all that I was asking.

I am not sure that is the “most commonly agreed upon definition” but anyway…

It does seem to me that this definition is at best incomplete in the case Scripture is silent or ambiguous on an issue. But then again perhaps the phrase “final authority” needs further definition and a more nuanced definition of “final authority” would not be contradictory.,

Anyway because of this issue, I prefer not to use the phrase “final authority” myself, but that is me.

 

[JohnnyReb]

2 Tim 3:15-17
16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.

Taught Sola Scriptura. Yet, when I brought up that the duty of equipping the saints for the work of the ministry was given to men, not to books, you did not seem to be able to reconcile these two verses. Either a man can pick up his Bible and become everything God intends, or not. When Catholics read the scripture, we see that Jesus founded a Church. You apparently don’t read these verses.

I read those verses but have not concluded that they teach that the CC claims they do. Remember, when people make a claim, its up to them to prove it, not me to disprove it.

I was not meaning to chastize, just observing that you are taking the scriptures out of their context. You are right, you have no compunction to interpret the scriptures in the light of what God has already revealed to mankind. You are free to do with them whatever you like. You can use them for toilet paper - no one here will stop you.

Is that necessary? You’re better than that.

Yes, Jesus taught from tradition. Yes, he taught using Scripture. As the passage notes, Scripture is useful for teaching. Why would He not? He did not say it was the only thing that was useful, or that one should use it apart from the other things God has given.

Can you point to where Jesus taught from tradition? He speaks of tradition often, and not in a positive sense.

The Apostles and prophets are the foundation of the CC. They were the leaders, then they ordained their successors the Bishops to take their place. The duty of the bishop was to teach sound doctrine. Scripture is useful in this duty, which belongs to persons.

Even persons are bound by its teaching, because neither of us disputes that what it teaches comes from the apostles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyReb
Since you love 2 Thess 2:15, lets deal with that one.

That seems a little sarcastic, don’t you think? Is there some reason we should not love all of the Scripture?

Yes, Elvis’s tone was starting to irrate me, my apologies.

Passed is in the past tense. These traditions had already been passed down. Can you name some of them that did not make it into the scriptures, that are necessary for salvation?

Yes, 1) God created mankind, and Himself provided for our salvation
2) It is He who decides what is necessary to save us
3) He founded a church for the purpose of saving us
4) that the Scripture is not to be separated from the faith of those who produced it.

Ok, but that doesn’t address my exegesis of 2 Thess 2:15.

Well, we read it differently, don’t we? And why should our understanding of what we read be less valid than yours?

The bible does not “teach”, Johnny. People teach. God gave the gifts and authority to men to teach, and to train the flock in rightousness.

I never said that the Bible teaches. It is teaching. People teach from it and are bound by it. That’s all I am saying. Nothing more or less.

When you are willing to look at the rest of the Scriptures, you will find that these children belong to another mother. But, you are right, it is beyond the scope of this thread. It is just an example of what happens when the Scriptures are separated from the One Faith of those who produced them.

Ok, I am ready to listen. Which ones?

There are two problems here, one is that everyone who reads the scripture understands it within their own experience and education (or lack of it). That means that you can measure what I teach against how you understand scripture and you may find that it does not “measure up” according to how you read it. Your perceptions are the filter.

The other is that the Scritpures cannot hold anyone accountable. Accountability is an action that requres a person, just as authority, and teaching. These activities are things that persons do, not writings, however Holy.

Point one: What makes you think the CC is immune from this? Because it claims that it is?

Point two: Paul told the Thessalonians to test everything, hold fast to what is God. John tells us to test the spirits as well. Peter says to us:

1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.

What I mean is that even they realize that their authority comes from Christ. I think we are in agreement about that. I think at the heart of the matter is the doctrine of Apostolic succession and what it means for the church.

I am glad we can agree that Jesus did give the Apostles authority,and that it is God’s authority. I think you are right, the heart of the matter is, what happened to that authority? Did Jesus withdraw it, and leave them orphaned? Or, did they lose it because they abused it?

That’s good, we getting somewhere. To answer the question…None of the above, I think most non Catholics rejection of the idea of Apostolic succession is huge for them. The apostles played a unique foundational role with the church that died out with them. We base it on the following requirement of the Apostolic ministry given by Peter himself

21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”

 

[guanophore]

Part of me wishes I could be like “I found Rome, Thanks be to God” but there are some things you see here that I have a hard time accepting form the church. If the church (at least in my current view) erred in some teaching, SS becomes the only default option I have to turn to.

Well, you sure came to the right place to air them out!

I agree with you, if the church erred in some teaching, tehn SS is the best default option. I think the Reformers were trying to purify the faith, and jettisoned the authorities appointed by Christ, replacing them with Scripture. They were trying to replace corruption with Truth,and they knew they would find it in scripture.

 

[guanophore]

Thanks, that is all that I was asking.

I am not sure that is the “most commonly agreed upon definition” but anyway…

It does seem to me that this definition is at best incomplete in the case Scripture is silent or ambiguous on an issue. But then again perhaps the phrase “final authority” needs further definition and a more nuanced definition of “final authority” would not be contradictory.,

Anyway because of this issue, I prefer not to use the phrase “final authority” myself, but that is me.

Perhaps if it were actually in scripture, then it would be easier to agree on a definition?

I don’t think a more clear definition of “final authority” would help, chiefly because it is not possible for a book to wield authority. The exercise of authority is restricted to persons, because it requires capabilities that only persons have.

 

[guanophore]

2 Tim 3:15-17
16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.

QUOTE=JohnnyReb;7421038] I read those verses but have not concluded that they teach that the CC claims they do. Remember, when people make a claim, its up to them to prove it, not me to disprove it.

Just what claim, exactly, did you think the CC was making?

Do you honestly want us to “prove” that we can;t see the concept of SS in this verse?

QUOTE=JohnnyReb;7421038] Is that necessary? You’re better than that.

Perhaps I overextended in my literary hyperbole?

QUOTE=JohnnyReb;7421038] Can you point to where Jesus taught from tradition? He speaks of tradition often, and not in a positive sense.

Most of what He taught is found in Tradition. He only objected to traditions when they interfered with God’s plan. He did not even have trouble with human tradition (as opposed to divine or sacred Tradition), so long as it did not thwart the word of God. He participated in all the things that were customary for Jews of His time, including the pilgrimmages to the temple.

One very significant Sacred Tradition was known as the Seat of Moses. This title is not found anywhere in the OT, yet He used according to the common reference. He also transferred the Teaching Authority (Seat of Moses) to the Apostles, commissioning them with the ability to Teach in His Name and with His Authority.

QUOTE=JohnnyReb;7421038] Even persons are bound by its teaching, because neither of us disputes that what it teaches comes from the apostles.

I dispute that it teaches, because teaching is an activity that belongs to a person.

QUOTE=JohnnyReb;7421038] Ok, but that doesn’t address my exegesis of 2 Thess 2:15.

Indeed, it does entirely. The Sacred Tradition was never meant to be separated from the Sacred Scripture produced by it. Since they are both the Word of God, and come from the same Source, there can be no contradiction between the two. The reason some people perceive a discrepancy or a conflict is because they are reading the Scripture without the benefit of the point of view of those who wrote it.

QUOTE=JohnnyReb;7421038] I never said that the Bible teaches. It is teaching. People teach from it and are bound by it. That’s all I am saying. Nothing more or less.

I think you just said this above! Yes, people teach from it, and are bound by it. But Scripture is not responsible to equip the saints.

QUOTE=JohnnyReb;7421038] Ok, I am ready to listen. Which ones?

If this is true, then you will have no trouble finding LOTS of threads here on this. It comes up a lot.

QUOTE=JohnnyReb;7421038] Point one: What makes you think the CC is immune from this? Because it claims that it is?

Because the CC is greater than the sum of her individual parts. She is infallible by means of her divine elements. Individuals who are attached to her, however, are not immune. Individuals can, and do, make errors with the Scriptures. This is why it is so important to have the Truth preserved in the Church. It keeps individuals from straying.

QUOTE=JohnnyReb;7421038] Point two: Paul told the Thessalonians to test everything, hold fast to what is God. John tells us to test the spirits as well. Peter says to us:

1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.

Did I say something that left you with the impression that Catholics are absolved of this? Do you realize the entire NT was written by , for, and about Catholics? There is nothing in it that is not Catholic.

QUOTE=JohnnyReb;7421038] That’s good, we getting somewhere. To answer the question…None of the above, I think most non Catholics rejection of the idea of Apostolic succession is huge for them. The apostles played a unique foundational role with the church that died out with them. We base it on the following requirement of the Apostolic ministry given by Peter himself

21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”

So, are you saying that they had no other role than to found the Church, and that all of their ministry and authority died out with them?

If so, what was the point of installing bishops?

 

[RedDawgMCM]

Admittedly this is a bit of conjecture sir. But how would you feel if your older brother told a family friend he was in charge of the care of your mother? Besides as others have pointed out that is one verse of many that can be used in defending Mary’s virginity.

Here’s an OT prophecy that defends the idea as well:

[BIBLEDRB]Ezekiel 44:1-2[/BIBLEDRB]

This is a far better defense than I could ever muster on the topic

catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2010/12/did-mary-have-other-children.html

Conjecture. Scriptural proof Por Favor.

 

[PbloPicasso]

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?

I’d like to let you guys in on a big secret. My former protestant church supported the scriptural faith based on 1 Corinthians 13:10, etc.

The “Perfect” is the “word of God”. That’s how they explain the solo scriptura while explaining that tongues, healing, prophesying, etc. are no long needed, because the “word of God” = New Testament, has finally come. The books were read and collected. The providence of God brought the “correct” texts together without the ned for anyone, including without Catholics. It would be correct to say that the word of God was manifested in spite of the Catholic apostasy.

added to add: It is obvious that Jesus was talking to all of the apostles, not just Peter, at the time. It’s called “necessary inference”.

 

[therealprophecy]

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?

hi,

this is because THE OLD TESTAMENT is only a library of books about CHRIST JESUS…all the old testament is talking about JESUS…when jesus came to the earth one of His main objectives was to show the people that the old testament was all about Him…dats y he could tell the pharasees that they wer not really sons of God because if they really understood the old testament they will know who He is because the old testament is all about Him…just lyk when He(jesus) resurrected and He joined the two deciples on the journey to Emmaus:

Luk 24:13 And, behold, two of them were going on the same day to a village being sixty stadia distant from Jerusalem, which was named Emmaus.
Luk 24:14 And they talked to each other about all these things taking place.
Luk 24:15 And it happened, as they talked and reasoned, coming near, Jesus Himself traveled with them.
Luk 24:16 But their eyes were held so as not to recognize Him.
Luk 24:17 And He said to them, What words are these which you exchange with each other while walking, and are sad of face?
Luk 24:18 And answering, one of them whose name was Cleopas, said to Him, Are you only one who resides in Jerusalem and do not know the things happening in it in these days?
Luk 24:19 And He said to them, What things? And they said to Him, The things concerning Jesus the Nazarene, who was a man, a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people;
Luk 24:20 and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to the judgment of death, and crucified Him.
Luk 24:21 But we were hoping that He is the One going to redeem Israel. But then with all these things, this third day comes today since these things happened.
Luk 24:22 And also some of our women astounded us, having been early at the tomb,
Luk 24:23 and not finding His body, they came saying to have seen a vision of angels also, who say Him to be alive.
Luk 24:24 And some of those with us went to the tomb, and found it so, even as the women also said; but they did not see Him.
Luk 24:25 And He said to them, O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe on all things which the prophets spoke!
Luk 24:26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things, and to enter into His glory?
Luk 24:27 And beginning from Moses, and from all the prophets, He explained to them the things about Himself in all the Scriptures.

So we see here that Jesus was the manifestation of the OLD testament…since the disciples lived with Him and interacted with him on a daily basis,there were actually in constant communion with scripture so the got to see the scripture in is real form–JESUS(the word)…so it was very very very reasonable that paul and barnabas(who were appointed) went to the disciples(who walked with the word) to understand what all the word really is…so all that the disciples reported to paul and barnabas was exactly as Jesus portrayed it and we all know Jesus was perfectly in line with scripture…HE FULFILLED THE OLD TESTAMENT which was about Him and NEVA CONTRADICTED A WORD in it…

its just like how a brotherA in Christ will learn from another brotherB in Christ about his(B) relationship with Christ and will readily check the scriptures(as they did in acts) to see if what B was sayin was in line before accepting it as sound doctrine…if A realizes dat B is upholding His “doctrine” about Christ above Christ Himself(THE WORD) and the was a contradiction,then B’s doctrine has now become a “tradition of men”… and we all know what Christ Himself said about traditions of men as compared to WHAT IS WRITTEN…hope this helps

 

[East_Anglican]

Th eproblem with Sola Scriptura is that people would tend to interpret scripture to mean what they want it to mean hence we Anglicans also use tradition and reason.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Th eproblem with Sola Scriptura is that people would tend to interpret scripture to mean what they want it to mean hence we Anglicans also use tradition and reason.

Well I alluded to that earlier and I think you are right. Our position is better described as Prima Scriptura rather than **Sola. **

 

[ckempston]

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.

No, I’m not wrong. James renders the final decision in chapter 15, he says - “It is my judgment” and then directs everyone as to what should be done, and that is exactly what is written in the letter. Also interestingly, he calls Peter Simon, not his name given by Christ.

I don’t believe in Sola Scriptura, so that’s not really a problem for me.

 

[RedDawgMCM]

Originally Posted by RedDawgMCM View Post
Johnny Reb, I have answered your challenges below. You by the way are the second person I have seen use that passage from Corinthians to proof text SS.

If they (the Corinthians) weren’t to go beyond what was written that would leave them a very small canon indeed. In fact it would leave them the OT.

Explain.

Well as some have already pointed out 1st Corinthians is one of if not the earliest book of the NT. If the Corinthians aren’t to go beyond what is written, that leaves them with the OT and nothing else.

St. Paul had no way of knowing if anyone was going to write anything else, let alone if it was to be collected and codified into a whole book. How can he be teaching SS?

 

[JohnnyReb]

Well as some have already pointed out 1st Corinthians is one of if not the earliest book of the NT. If the Corinthians aren’t to go beyond what is written, that leaves them with the OT and nothing else.

St. Paul had no way of knowing if anyone was going to write anything else, let alone if it was to be collected and codified into a whole book. How can he be teaching SS?

That doesn’t matter, since the Holy Spirit clearly knew more was to be written.