Sola scriptura advocates: Acts 15, & doctrinal guidance?

[JohnnyReb]

I am taking some time to reflect about these issues some more, so I am hesitant to respond further at this time.I may in a day or two. Guanophore probably already has an idea why as I have sent him a private message about it, but I feel I owe you an explaination too Elvis. I need to to do the some reflection where I am spiritually right now. I am at a cross roads. I just opened a thread in the Evangelism section of the forum where I go into some detail about this.

 

[PbloPicasso]

**I agree with some **of what you say but I have to point out a couple of things that just don’t jive here.

First of all, you claim that Jesus is the rock in this passage
Either I wrote unclearly or you misinterpreted what I meant. Jesus is clearly calling Peter “the rock”

, which makes absolutely no sense when read in context. Jesus is blessing Peter here because his confession of faith. As in the essay by Karl Keating that I provided in my last post, it is a three-fold blessing and the gift of the keys of the Kingdom. I makes no sense whatsoever to downplay Peter as he is blessing him and installing him as his chief steward.

I agree with what you say here too.

You then go on to say that the Rock is the Church, which Peter is to take care of. I have never heard this theory before from any theologian - Protestant or Catholic.
I don’t remember saying this either.** I must conclude that either you can’t read or I’m really crazy - later is more likely. i need to re read what I wrote because that doesn’t make sense either. I need to do a better job proofing what I write…**

You seem to want to give the title of “Rock” to everybody but the intended recipient, which is Peter.
This doesn’t make any sense to me either because I was talking, not to you, but to the Anglican. Jesus is the corner stone… I feel remarkably credible now that you’ve critiqued my writing, who would have bothered. Like I said, I need to re read what I wrote when I’m awake.

You are right about the passage in Isaiah. This is a foreshadowing of the authority of Peter.

**Had I written what I was saying better I believe you would have no choice but to agree with everything I meant. I got it from CAF and studied it while converting. I just did a poor service to presenting it clearly… I must have really botched what you read. I remember having problems with my mouse and deleting and rewriting. I was exhausted and thought I finally fixed everything. That’s probably what happened. I have a wireless keyboard and mouse. The mouse has a strange “back” button that drives me nuts an I typically hit a button on my keyboard from time to time that does something else. I apologize. What you said is absolutely correct. Its obvious to me, but not to you guys, that I screwed that up. I feel more dumb than what I really am now. Please accept my apologies. I didn’t mean to write something with such a lack of attention. **

 

[PbloPicasso]

Yeap, I’m crazy. Ever hear of that Army saying “I know that you believe you understood what I said but I’m not sure the you reallung understood what I meant”… something like that. I botched that up too.

I’ll have to think how to say what I was trying to say again. It didn’t come out right. And yes, my mouse and keyboard caused me to write and rewrite several times. No good excuse, but “that’s my story and I’m sticking to it”.

 

[elvisman]

**Had I written what I was saying better I believe you would have no choice but to agree with everything I meant. I got it from CAF and studied it while converting. I just did a poor service to presenting it clearly… I must have really botched what you read. I remember having problems with my mouse and deleting and rewriting. I was exhausted and thought I finally fixed everything. That’s probably what happened. I have a wireless keyboard and mouse. The mouse has a strange “back” button that drives me nuts an I typically hit a button on my keyboard from time to time that does something else. I apologize. What you said is absolutely correct. Its obvious to me, but not to you guys, that I screwed that up. I feel more dumb than what I really am now. Please accept my apologies. I didn’t mean to write something with such a lack of attention. **

I think I got confused by the way you wrote your post.
If you go back and read it - it sounds like you’re saying the things I listed.
If you’re not - I’ll give you the benefir of the doubt . . .

 

[PbloPicasso]

I think I got confused by the way you wrote your post.
If you go back and read it - it sounds like you’re saying the things I listed.
If you’re not - I’ll give you the benefir of the doubt . . .

Just to clarify, we do agree. I still hold to the fact I was crazy at the moment and would love to take a pic and post it on her to show how my laziness got me into that trouble. My wireless devices are nifty, but they cause problems when I get tired and nearly fall asleep. Ever nodded? I do that a lot at my keyboad because I’m so tired all the time. I’m playing home dad and frankly women are under appreciated for what they normally do at home without complaint.

 

[Dokimas]

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. "

Sacred Scripture of the Jews spoke about Jews needing to become circumcised and those non Jews that lived with them as slaves. After Jesus came, lived and died it was no longer about being Jewish. Jesus’ Body was NOT about a nation (Jewish) but about chosen. As Paul wrote, it’s the circumcism of the heart not the body that matters to God.

Christians are circumcised in their hearts. Thus the real OT meaning is fulfilled in both male and female instead of just males. ALL can be included throught Jesus the Christ. That’s Good News!!!

 

[elvisman]

Sacred Scripture of the Jews spoke about Jews needing to become circumcised and those non Jews that lived with them as slaves. After Jesus came, lived and died it was no longer about being Jewish. Jesus’ Body was NOT about a nation (Jewish) but about chosen. As Paul wrote, it’s the circumcism of the heart not the body that matters to God.

Christians are circumcised in their hearts. Thus the real OT meaning is fulfilled in both male and female instead of just males. ALL can be included throught Jesus the Christ. That’s Good News!!!

This doesn’t address the question. The OP wanted to know WHY Paul and Barnabas deferred to the Church, and NOT sacred scripture on this matter if indeed they believed in Sola Scriptura.

 

[joe370]

**This doesn’t **address the question. The OP wanted to know WHY Paul and Barnabas deferred to the Church, and NOT sacred scripture on this matter if indeed they believed in Sola Scriptura.

Exactly…Hoping a SS advocate will address that very question.

 

[Nicea325]

Exactly…Hoping a SS advocate will address that very question.

They have no answer because it is a fact Sola Scriptura was never taught by the Apostles and by Jesus who is God. My argument for SS advocates is rather simple:

If SS is vital for our salvation,then I am curious to know why Jesus (God) never bothers to mention it or tell the Apostles at all? Why didn’t the Apostles defend it? Why didn’t the ECF’s defend it as they did other orthodox beliefs (Trinity,Incarnation,etc) throughout the centuries? Why wasn’t it ever mentioned at ANY ecumenical council,if it is the ‘mother’ of all doctrines?

 

[JohnnyReb]

They have no answer because it is a fact Sola Scriptura was never taught by the Apostles and by Jesus who is God. My argument for SS advocates is rather simple:

If SS is vital for our salvation,then I am curious to know why Jesus (God) never bothers to mention it or tell the Apostles at all? Why didn’t the Apostles defend it? Why didn’t the ECF’s defend it as they did other orthodox beliefs (Trinity,Incarnation,etc) throughout the centuries? Why wasn’t it ever mentioned at ANY ecumenical council,if it is the ‘mother’ of all doctrines?

My answer would be in regards to Christ, just to discuss the point further: Does it matter that Christ mentioned it or not? He never taught against homosexuality, abortion or artifical birth control either. He may have taught from tradition in a few occasions, but taught from the scriptures over 100 times in the Gospels, and paired knowing the scriptures with knowing the power of God, something he never did for tradition.

 

[JohnnyReb]

You’re right.
However - NOBODY knew it until the Church declared them canonical under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Jesus told the apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide his Church to ALL truth (John 16:12-15).

There were MANY books that were considered useful in those first few hundred years that ultimately didn’t make the cut in the canon of Scripture. Remember - even one of Paul’s letters didn’t make it. In Col 4:16, we read of his Letter to the Laodiceans that wasn’t included in the canon of Scripture.

MANY people wanted the letters of Clement and Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas and others included but ultimately, it was God’s Church that made the decision with the Holy Spirit’s guidance.

Are they canonical because the church said they were, or did the church say they were canonical because they were canonical?

In regards to John 16:12-15, non Catholics see this verse as already fulfilled in the teaching of the Gospel, and the giving of Apostolic teaching in the scriptures. Christ spoke these words to his Apostles, who along with their associates, preached the Gospel and wrote the scriptures. The Catholic interpretation of that passage relies on the doctrine of Apostolic succession to be valid. Without Apostolic succession, the Catholic understanding of that scripture does not hold up.

 

[elvisman]

Are they canonical because the church said they were, or did the church say they were canonical because they were canonical?

In regards to John 16:12-15, non Catholics see this verse as already fulfilled in the teaching of the Gospel, and the giving of Apostolic teaching in the scriptures. Christ spoke these words to his Apostles, who along with their associates, preached the Gospel and wrote the scriptures. The Catholic interpretation of that passage relies on the doctrine of Apostolic succession to be valid. Without Apostolic succession, the Catholic understanding of that scripture does not hold up.

They’re canonical because the Church declared them canonical under the guidance of the Holy Spirit as guaranteed by Jesus in John 16:12-15.
That’s about the most complete answer there is.**

As for this passage in John, it is the non-Catholic teaching doesn’t hold up.
NOWHERE in ALL of Scripture does Jesus give the Apostles an instruction to write a letter or book. NOWHERE.

He DOES, however, tell then that the Church would be guided to ALL truth and that what they ratified on earth would be ratified in heaven.

As for Paul’s writings - why do you think the Letter to the Laodiceans didn’t make it into the canon of Scripture? Do you thnk that Paul wrote uninspired letters concerning doctrine. Why isn’t this letter in Protestant Bibles?

 

[Dokimas]

**This doesn’t **address the question. The OP wanted to know WHY Paul and Barnabas deferred to the Church, and NOT sacred scripture on this matter if indeed they believed in Sola Scriptura.

You’ll have to ask them.

 

[joe370]

You’ll have to ask them.

Dok, if Paul and Barnabas, when faced with a “sharp dispute and debate” deferred to the church for guidance shouldn’t we, as Christians follow their example, by deferring to the church for guidance, when faced with a “sharp dispute and debate”? Or, should each Christian defer to the bible via private interpretation, when faced with a “sharp dispute and debate”?

 

[Dokimas]

Dok, if Paul and Barnabas, when faced with a “sharp dispute and debate” deferred to the church for guidance shouldn’t we, as Christians follow their example, by deferring to the church for guidance, when faced with a “sharp dispute and debate”? Or, should each Christian defer to the bible via private interpretation, when faced with a “sharp dispute and debate”?

Paul corrected church leaders when they were wrong (Peter specifically).

Sure we should get church authorities to help. As the first church leaders WEREN’T always correct, NO church or it’s leaders are always correct.

Of course I don’t understand everything (not even close). I do have people I go to if I have questions. That doesn’t mean they are necessarily correct.

IMO, you are making more of these Scriptures than God intended. Guess we’ll have to wait to see.

 

[Little_Mary]

Dok, if Paul and Barnabas, when faced with a “sharp dispute and debate” deferred to the church for guidance shouldn’t we, as Christians follow their example, by deferring to the church for guidance, when faced with a “sharp dispute and debate”? Or, should each Christian defer to the bible via private interpretation, when faced with a “sharp dispute and debate”?

I’ll go one more and ask this: IF the “Church” is an invisible church made up of all Christian believers, HOW do you “defer to the church”? Where do you go, exactly?

 

[joe370]

Dokimas;7439653]Paul corrected church leaders when they were wrong (Peter specifically).

Not only that, but he wrote a large portion of the New Testament, which begs the question: why did he have to defer to the church? Why didn’t Paul simply turn to scripture alone and settle the matter himself?

Sure we should get church authorities to help. As the first church leaders WEREN’T always correct, NO church or it’s leaders are always correct.

That is because no one in Jesus’ church ministry is perfect or infallible or inerrant or impeccable. Jesus’ one church (which ever church in the world today, you believe that to be) - born on Pentecost, is always correct regarding “all truth,” because the perfect infallible Holy Spirit sees to it that all truth is providentially preserved in Jesus’ church, so that every generation is privy to those truths. Seems reasonable to me anyway.

IMO, you are making more of these Scriptures than God intended. Guess we’ll have to wait to see.

Maybe I am; I guess we will all know one day…

 

[joe370]

I’ll go one more and ask this: IF the “Church” is an invisible church made up of all Christian believers, HOW do you “defer to the church”? Where do you go, exactly?

Good point. As a former non-Catholic I never understood the concept of the invisible church. From a strictly sola scriptura perspective, an invisible church should not be believed.

 

[Dokimas]

I’ll go one more and ask this: IF the “Church” is an invisible church made up of all Christian believers, HOW do you “defer to the church”? Where do you go, exactly?

Notice in the writings we call the NT, specifially the epistles. Many start, to the church at … The Book of Revelation, chapter 2 & 3 Jesus addresses 7 churches. Jesus gave us local churches with local authorities to be accountable to.

Jesus asked a very interesting question…

Lu 18:8 “I tell you that He will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth?”

Seems the implication there is that Jesus will be hard pressed (to use human terms) to find faith when He returns. Does the church function as Jesus intended? Only Jesus truly can answer that, but I think if we are honest with ourselves, we can answer that with the help of Luke 18:8 and the answer isn’t pretty.

Unless I get accused of basing a specific church, I’m speaking of Christianity as a whole, not it’s specific parts.

 

[JohnnyReb]

They’re canonical because the Church declared them canonical under the guidance of the Holy Spirit as guaranteed by Jesus in John 16:12-15.
That’s about the most complete** answer there is.

As for this passage in John, it is the non-Catholic teaching doesn’t hold up.
NOWHERE in ALL of Scripture does Jesus give the Apostles an instruction to write a letter or book. NOWHERE.

He DOES, however, tell then that the Church would be guided to ALL truth and that what they ratified on earth would be ratified in heaven.

As for Paul’s writings - why do you think the Letter to the Laodiceans didn’t make it into the canon of Scripture? Do you thnk that Paul wrote uninspired letters concerning doctrine. Why isn’t this letter in Protestant Bibles?

I think you sort of affirmed what I just pointed out-the Catholic understanding here relies on the doctrine of Apostolic succession. In context, Jesus is speaking to his Apostles. To say that Apostles=Church, specifically Catholic Church, is to approach the text with the assumption of Catholic teaching to be true before hand. The fact that Jesus doesn’t instruct them to write anything down is irrelevent. He was aware of the Old Testament scriptures and referred to them often.

Without Apostolic succession, how would Apostolic teaching be preserved? Its common sense, it would be preserved to us by what they wrote down. But since the CC believes in AS, Apostolic teaching is able to be passed down in other forms.

I always like what Catholic scholar Luke Timothy Johnson said in regards to the canon. To paraphrase, he aid the church knew what it believed, and selected books (of course with guidence of the Holy Spirit) that reflected what the church believed to be true and left the ones that did not reflect those beliefs out of the canon. Even before they were officially canonized, the letters that became the New Testament were being used in the church because they reflected what we believe to be true as Christians (ie didn’t teach Gnosticism and the like)