Sola scriptura advocates: Acts 15, & doctrinal guidance?

[elvisman]

You’ll have to ask them.

Uhhh, no - they’re actions spoke VOLUMES about Church authority and the inefficiency of Scripture alone to decide matters of the Church.
Your non-answer does the very same.

Thanks Doki - and welcome back!

 

[elvisman]

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?

That’s not fair!
You’re making too much sense . . .

 

[elvisman]

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)

The general rule of thumb is that when Christ spoke to the crowds – he spoke to everybody in general.
When he spoke to and gave instructions to his Apostles – he was speaking to the Church and its hierarchy. Any reputable theologian would agree. Since Jesus only established ONE Church – not thousands – the one Church that traces itself back to Matt. 16:18-19 is the one he was speaking to, which is the Catholic Church. The Orthodox would have you believe it was them. Either way - it was only one Church, which would render the claims or every Protestant denomination regarding authority of anything - null and void.

---

Contrary to what you’ve claimed - the fact that Jesus doesn’t instruct them to write anything down IS relevant. It points to the final authority that is the Church – not Scripture itself. Just as the Bereans used Scripture to glean some truths about Christ because they had no other authority to defer to – the Church also gleans truths from Scripture and defines doctrines when the Scriptures are unclear or silent on certain matters.

---

**Additionally – referring to heterodox cafeteria Catholic like Luke Timothy Johnson as a “Catholic Scholar” is a bit like calling Napolean a “Catholic in good standing” simply because he was baptized at the age of two. It’s just plain silly.

---

Many of the letters of the NT WERE being used and read aloud in churches around the civilized world before the Canon of Scripture. However, there were many others that were also being used that DIDN’T make it into the Canon. Johnson’s claims are a bit like a blind Monday morning quarterback who forgets that the Holy Spirit was involved in the decision of what was canonical and what was not. EVERY Protestant theologian will agree on that.

---

To believe in Johnson’s flawed hypothesis – you would have to believe that the canon of Scripture that you adhere to is spurious.

 

[JohnnyReb]

The general rule of thumb is that when Christ spoke to the crowds – he spoke to everybody in general.
When he spoke to and gave instructions to his Apostles – he was speaking to the Church and its hierarchy. Any reputable theologian would agree. Since Jesus only established ONE Church – not thousands – the one Church that traces itself back to Matt. 16:18-19 is the one he was speaking to, which is the Catholic Church. The Orthodox would have you believe it was them. Either way - it was only one Church, which would render the claims or every Protestant denomination regarding authority of anything - null and void.

Ok. I have some questions. The first is what do you mean by speaking to everybody. Christ was speaking to his disciples, probably the 12 and a few others, in the course of the farewell narrative. This is clear if you go back to the very beginning of chapter 13, where the discourse begins.

The second is if he is speaking to everyone, then he is not just speaking to the hierarchy but the laity too. What role do they play in all this?

The third is how you can dismiss just about every non-Catholic scholar? They are all not going to affirm that Jesus was speaking to the hierarchy of the church. Yet, you said that any reputable scholar will tell you he was.

Contrary to what you’ve claimed - the fact that Jesus doesn’t instruct them to write anything down IS relevant. It points to the final authority that is the Church – not Scripture itself. Just as the Bereans used Scripture to glean some truths about Christ because they had no other authority to defer to – the Church also gleans truths from Scripture and defines doctrines when the Scriptures are unclear or silent on certain matters.

And they accepted Oral teaching because it was in harmony with scripture. The scriptures testify to Christ (John 5:39). Jesus, being God, was well aware that the third person of the Trinity would inspire the New Testament writings. There was no need to instruct them directly to do that.

Additionally – referring to heterodox cafeteria Catholic like Luke Timothy Johnson as a “Catholic Scholar” is a bit like calling Napolean a “Catholic in good standing” simply because he was baptized at the age of two. It’s just plain silly.

You don’t have to agree with what he says, but he is very reputable in New Testament studies, and frankly probably more qualifed than either of us.

Many of the letters of the NT WERE being used and read aloud in churches around the civilized world before the Canon of Scripture. However, there were many others that were also being used that DIDN’T make it into the Canon. Johnson’s claims are a bit like a blind Monday morning quarterback who forgets that the Holy Spirit was involved in the decision of what was canonical and what was not. EVERY Protestant theologian will agree on that.

To believe in Johnson’s flawed hypothesis – you would have to believe that the canon of Scripture that you adhere to is spurious.

Not sure if I disagree or agree with what you said, but I want to point out that his statement was made in the context of arguing against the Jesus Seminar, and arguing why certain books belong in the canon and why the canonical books provide a more realistic picture of Jesus then writings that did not make it in. He is one of their sharpest critics.

 

[Dokimas]

Uhhh, no - they’re actions spoke VOLUMES about Church authority and the inefficiency of Scripture alone to decide matters of the Church.
Your non-answer does the very same.

Thanks Doki - and welcome back!

Thanks for welcoming me back and for your opinion.

 

[elvisman]

Ok. I have some questions. The first is what do you mean by speaking to everybody. Christ was speaking to his disciples, probably the 12 and a few others, in the course of the farewell narrative. This is clear if you go back to the very beginning of chapter 13, where the discourse begins.

The second is if he is speaking to everyone, then he is not just speaking to the hierarchy but the laity too. What role do they play in all this?

The third is how you can dismiss just about every non-Catholic scholar? They are all not going to affirm that Jesus was speaking to the hierarchy of the church. Yet, you said that any reputable scholar will tell you he was.

As I indicated before – Crowds = ALL of us in general.
Apostles/disciples only = Church/hierarchy.

**For instance, when Jesus appeared to those in the upper Room on the night he rose from the dead – he was only **speaking to the leaders of the Church when he gave them the power to forgive sins in his name or hold them bound (John 20:21-23). At the Last supper, he told the apostles that the holy Spirit would guide them to ALL truth. He didn’t say that to the crowds.

When he preached the Beatitudes to the crowds – he was speaking to ALL of us. Certainbly, you see the difference here.

Lastly – I will qualify what I said by stating that every reputable theologian I’ve ever read or heard from.

And they accepted Oral teaching because it was in harmony with scripture. The scriptures testify to Christ (John 5:39). Jesus, being God, was well aware that the third person of the Trinity would inspire the New Testament writings. There was no need to instruct them directly to do that.

**The Scriptures DO testify to Christ – as does the WHOLE word of God. Either you believe every word from Jesus mouth to be the Word of God or you don’t. The Scriptures do not encompass every single word uttered by Jesus.

Remember – John also tells us that there were MANY other things Jesus said and did that are NOT recorded (John 21:25). Yet, every time he opened his mouth and spoke – it was the word of God.
**

You don’t have to agree with what he says, but he is very reputable in New Testament studies, and frankly probably more qualifed than either of us.

I didn’t call him disreputable. I questioned the fact that you referred to him as a Catholic source.

H****e espouses a heterodox, cafeteria-brand of Catholicism. He can HARDLY be considered a Catholic Scholar, which is the context of how you used his quote.
Independent Scripture Scholar, yes – Catholic, NO.

Not sure if I disagree or agree with what you said, but I want to point out that his statement was made in the context of arguing against the Jesus Seminar, and arguing why certain books belong in the canon and why the canonical books provide a more realistic picture of Jesus then writings that did not make it in. He is one of their sharpest critics.

His criticism of the Jesus Seminar doesn’t make him a good source of orthodox Catholic teaching. Any Christian who ISN’T a critic of the Jesus seminar should be considered a laughable source.

Earlier you stated that he claimed the books that were chosen were chosen only because they agreed with Catholic teaching. While that may be partially true – it doesn’t explain why Protestants adhere to that canon if they claim Catholic teaching to be false . . .

 

[elvisman]

Thanks for welcoming me back and for your opinion.

Your welcome.
Thanks for proving my point . . .

 

[JohnnyReb]

The Scriptures DO testify to Christ – as does the WHOLE word of God. Either you believe every word from Jesus mouth to be the Word of God or you don’t. The Scriptures do not encompass every single word uttered by Jesus.

Well certainly not, all the teaches we have that came directly from his mouth could be said in a couple hours time, I reckon.

Remember – John also tells us that there were MANY other things Jesus said and did that are NOT recorded (John 21:25). Yet, every time he opened his mouth and spoke – it was the word of God.

No disagreement there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyReb
You don’t have to agree with what he says, but he is very reputable in New Testament studies, and frankly probably more qualifed than either of us.

I didn’t call him disreputable. I questioned the fact that you referred to him as a Catholic source.

He espouses a heterodox, cafeteria-brand of Catholicism. He can HARDLY be considered a Catholic Scholar, which is the context of how you used his quote.
Independent Scripture Scholar, yes – Catholic, NO.

That’s a perfectly fine critique of my position. He is a Catholic though and as far as I know remains part of the Catholic church, not that it matters. Someone like John Shelby Spong is a Protestant technically, but with the views he has on some things, it can be hard to even consider him a Christian. John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar is still techinically an Irish Catholic, even if his views about scripture are out in left field.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyReb
Not sure if I disagree or agree with what you said, but I want to point out that his statement was made in the context of arguing against the Jesus Seminar, and arguing why certain books belong in the canon and why the canonical books provide a more realistic picture of Jesus then writings that did not make it in. He is one of their sharpest critics.

His criticism of the Jesus Seminar doesn’t make him a good source of orthodox Catholic teaching. Any Christian who ISN’T a critic of the Jesus seminar should be considered a laughable source.

Never meant to imply that it did, only to provide context for his statement. He isn’t going to get too far with a critique of the Seminar that simply points to beliefs and authority of the Church, unless dealing with someone who accepts those claims. The seminar of all people will not.

Earlier you stated that he claimed the books that were chosen were chosen only because they agreed with Catholic teaching. While that may be partially true – it doesn’t explain why Protestants adhere to that canon if they claim Catholic teaching to be false . . .

It would apply to Protestants too. It would be their opinion that the canonical books teach what they believe as a church. As the CC views Protestants as seperated brethern, they must have the gift of the Holy Spirit because no one can confess Christ as Lord without the Holy Spirit. Its not outside the realm of possibility that they could also discern what the scriptures were/are in the same way the CC did.

 

[joe370]

Hey Dok…

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.

Dok, Jesus said: I will build my church. Just one church, not churches, and He prayed that His church would remain one and united. You sound as if you believe that those 7 churches, although geographically separated, were not one and united, doctrinally speaking, and did not comprise the one church founded by Jesus, with both saintly and not so saintly folks belonging to Jesus’ church?

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.

 

[SempirVeritas]

The question i would ask to the catholic is

Why dont you follow the prescriptions that the first church council infallibly declared

namely things like abstention from things strangeld(and blood)

because MOses was read in the synagouge every sabbath

I mean, atleast messianics are good at keeping this particular council as recorded… now if they would keep the rest, and if catholics would keep the first then all would be right?

 

[benidict]

The question i would ask to the catholic is

Why dont you follow the prescriptions that the first church council infallibly declared

namely things like abstention from things strangeld(and blood)

because MOses was read in the synagouge every sabbath

I mean, atleast messianics are good at keeping this particular council as recorded… now if they would keep the rest, and if catholics would keep the first then all would be right?

i havent eaten anything strangled, and i certainly dont eat anything with the blood still in it. pathogens and such. yuck! and i am celibate, so im not engaged in fornification either…anything else? peace

 

[SempirVeritas]

i havent eaten anything strangled, and i certainly dont eat anything with the blood still in it. pathogens and such. yuck! and i am celibate, so im not engaged in fornification either…anything else? peace

well, it would seem the plain implication is that

"We the church council give gentiles these 4 basic rules to start with, because we assume theyll learn more of torah later “because moses is read on the sabbath in the synagogue”

 

[Dokimas]

Your welcome.
**Thanks for proving **my point . . .

… and that was what?

 

[Dokimas]

Hey Dok…

Dok, Jesus said: I will build my church. Just one church, not churches, and He prayed that His church would remain one and united. You sound as if you believe that those 7 churches, although geographically separated, were not one and united, doctrinally speaking, and did not comprise the one church founded by Jesus, with both saintly and not so saintly folks belonging to Jesus’ church?

All the churches I was referring to was part of the one church founded by Jesus. I was answering the question where do we go to satify Matthew 18.

 

[Big_Dummy]

Ah, thougout that council they consulted the scriptures, Each of the items in verses 20-21 can be found in the OT. So, it was not the church without using the scriptures as their ultimate authority.

9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor **our ancestors **have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. 14 Simon[a] has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

16 “‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’**—
18 things known from long ago.[c]

19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”**

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Nicea325
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.

Does it it matter? If it is binding to our salvation,you bet it matters. Just because he quotes and teaches from scriptures does not hint or even support Sola Scriptura. Pure conjecture. Jesus also did not mention scores of things,like owning a Bible or attending Bible classes-all besides the point. The issue here is the bogus doctrine of SS,not what Jesus may have said or not said and related to our salvation.

 

[elvisman]

Ah, thougout that council they consulted the scriptures, Each of the items in verses 20-21 can be found in the OT. So, it was not the church without using the scriptures as their ultimate authority.

9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor **our ancestors **have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. 14 Simon[a] has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

16 “‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’**— **
**18 things known from long ago.[c] **

**19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to **abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabb****ath.”

They absolutely studied the Scriptures. Anybody who claims they didn’t simply doesn’t understand what happened at the Councilo of Jerusalem.

However, the Scriptures didn’t make the decision. Acts 15:28 explicitly says:
"It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities …".

The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit (just as Jesus guaranteed in John 16:12-15) made the decision because the problem of the Judaizers was unprecedented in Christiam history. There simply wasn’t a prescription in the OT for this specific problem. They were able to glean SOME guidance form the OT but ultimately, THEY, guided by the Holy Spirit, had to make the decision.**

Church Authority was here to STAY . . .

 

[elvisman]

… and that was what?

That your non-answers and refusals to provide evidence speak VOLUMES about Church authority and the inefficiency of Scripture alone to decide matters of the Church.

 

[guanophore]

I'm sure that you could, because that is exactly what happened with the guy I talked to last.

Do you think there is any chance that, if the Church says their beliefs are Catholic in their faith, then it might be true?

 Thats a good example, and I'm not going to twist your words, but you do believe that the Catholic church is the church of scripture and its claims are taught there, just not limited to there.

Yes.

However, I will add that, when I first started reading Scripture (after I left Catholicism) I did not believe it for a long time. I believed they were diametrically opposed to one another. This attitude came from a lack of catechesis, and the fact that I fell among Baptists who were staunchly anti-Catholic at the time.

This sort of implies that they both get their authority from tradition. That makes tradition the ultimate authority, and scripture subject to it, not even equal.

No, all authority in the Church comes from Christ. What Christ gave to the Church is preserved through Tradition and Scripture - equal strands of the same “once for all” divine deposit of faith.

Who holds these men accountable and how?

There is a complex procedure and practice for accountability. It has been used in the Church from the beginning, as we can see in the book of Acts when there were disagreements and people teaching error (like Gentiles had to be circumcised). The Church uses the procedure set by Christ in scripture, where disputes are taken directly to the brother, then if he will not listen, two or three go with them, and if he will still not listen, they go to the Church (apostolic authority).

The only one that I think is problematic is the canon. The rest can deduced from the scriptures, and if someone does not find that convincing, then tradition is helpful to clarify their objection.

Yes, as we all know, people can, and have “deduced” the opposite from Scripture.

Well thats exactly it, the books did not become inspired then, they were inspired as soon as they were written, and they were used in the church long before 382.

It is the same with the Marian doctrines, and the nature of Christ. They did not just start believing Jesus had two natures at the Council of Nicea.

YGM.

I have been offline for the last 5 days, but I will find your message and get back to you. You remain in my prayers for your spiritual discernment. Where God guides, he provides.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Sacred Tradition IS the Power of God. It is the Living Word, present in the Chruch.