Sola Scriptura and Acts 15

  • Thread starter Thread starter Autocur
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Autocur

Guest
I’ve been looking up Catholic apologetics and one big defence Catholic’s seem to use is that Acts 15 shows decisions being made by the authority of the church. Now I’ve seen Protestants make 3 basic answers to this claim.
  1. James quotes Amos 9: 11-12 at the end, and that seems to be what ends the discussion. The idea here is that the council was nothing without its appeal to scripture, and it was only clarified because of that.
  2. This council was only valid because there were living apostles at the council.
  3. This council was valid only because it takes place in the pages of the Bible.
Please help me clear this up.
 
Greetings and welcome!
Autocur said:
I’ve been looking up Catholic apologetics and one big defence Catholic’s seem to use is that Acts 15 shows decisions being made by the authority of the church. Now I’ve seen Protestants make 3 basic answers to this claim.
  1. James quotes Amos 9: 11-12 at the end, and that seems to be what ends the discussion. The idea here is that the council was nothing without its appeal to scripture, and it was only clarified because of that.
Click to expand...
If the council is nothing without the ‘appeal of scripture’ then why did Paul and Barnabas travel to Jerusalem? They could have solved the issue without the traveling and council, right?
Because there arose no little dissension and debate by Paul and Barnabas with them, it was decided that Paul, Barnabas, and some of the others should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question. ACTS 15:2
Click to expand...
Autocur said:
  1. This council was only valid because there were living apostles at the council.
  2. This council was valid only because it takes place in the pages of the Bible.
Click to expand...
Previously in ACTS chapter 1, after the death of Jesus, Matthias is chosen, by the Apostles, not Jesus, to replace Judas. This shows us the usage of apostolic succession in progress. Without apostolic succession to carry on the chrism of the original apostles how would the bible as we know it with the 27 books of the NT come to be? The Apostles did not leave us with a definitive list of NT books. This didn’t come till much later.

Peace!!!
 
Last edited:
Welcome!
  1. Such claims either tend to, or utterly ignore history. What about the Orthodox?***
  2. The first council did not appeal to scripture for the sake of scripture. They appealed to the prophet Amos as recorded in scripture. The words themselves would have no value unless the prophet first uttered them.
  3. The prophets (with a few exceptions) did not write everything, then later read it, as if writing by itself had some magic power. The writing was only to preserve the words of the prophet, which were of greater importance.
  4. The Apostles’ authority was an office - which was handed on. The replacement of Judas with Matthias the first example. They laid their hands on others and “handed” that authority on.
  5. Where did that first council declare that scripture was the basis of the Church? It did not.
  6. I would argue that the first “council” actually replaced Judas with Matthias (Acts 1). There was reference to scripture, but primarily as a guide and not a command.
  7. Demanding that the bible contain everything we believe strikes me as nonsensical since:
    a. The Lord NEVER taught this anywhere.
    b. Where is the bible defined in the bible?
    c. The “Sacred Table of Contents” came only from Church council. No prophet ever uttered or wrote the contents of the bible, either OT or NT.
    d. The New Testament tells us that it is an incomplete record. Saint John specifically.
  8. Christ teaches us that we are to judge all things according to the fruits they produce. The fruits of bible alone are division, always and everywhere.This division began even during the very birth of the reformation and continues to this day. This is the opposite of Christ’s desire that “they all be one as You and I are one.”
  9. Saint Paul writes the same, exhorting all Christians to “be of one mind” or of “one accord.”
*** The reformers approached the Orthodox regarding an alliance against the Catholic Church. After years of study and some 400 pages of written dialog, the Orthodox rejected Protestantism as lacking key, necessary elements of the Church as founded by Christ.
 
Last edited:
I always ask, “using the Bible and the Bible alone, where does the Bible teach the Bible alone?”

ZP
 
What do you think “Sola Scriptura” means? (Not the literal translation, but practically speaking - how is the concept actually used in practice?)
 
As we see in practice, words are easily twisted. Saint Peter wrote of this almost 2,000 years ago. The reformers demonstrated this to the world by disagreeing on what each man’s ego thought the Word of God meant. Not a single one of them had such authority.
 
Last edited:
po18guy said:
As we see in practice, words are easily twisted.
Click to expand...
Agreed. And also, as we see in practice, authority is easily twisted as well, no? (Something about power corrupting and absolute power corrupting absolutely comes to mind…)
 
Actually, no we don’t - not regarding the doctrines actually taught by Christ. As to personal behavior? Of course! Look up concupiscence.

Conundrum: Calvin instantly disagreed with Luther. Calvin was clearly wrong.

How do you prove otherwise?
 
My question to the OP was about the actual concept of Sola Sciptura - which is not “if it isn’t in the Bible it’s wrong”.

I’m a Reformed Protestant. We believe in and recite the Creeds (the most famous of which was the result of a Church Council), believe in a Trinitarian God, follow and celebrate the liturgical seasons, revere the early Church fathers and their writings (especially Augustine for some us) and on and on - none of which are explicitly “in the Bible”.

There are indeed things which Catholics and Protestants disagree upon. Many of them are important and thorny. My point was that the importance of scripture to us both (of which I think we are in violent agreement) is perhaps worth a bit less time and effort than it receives on CAF.
 
Last edited:
I’ve heard people reference 2 Timothy 3:16-17, 1 Corinthians 4:6, and Revelation 22:18-19.
 
It’s hard to tell. From my immature understanding, it seems Protestant say scripture is the final authority, while Catholics say it is on equal authority as big T tradition and the authority of the church. Protestants believe all creeds and the like must be backed up by the Bible while I suppose Catholics believe they can stand by themselves.
 
TULIPed said:
What do you think “Sola Scriptura” means? (Not the literal translation, but practically speaking - how is the concept actually used in practice?)
Click to expand...
TULIPed said:
There are indeed things which Catholics and Protestants disagree upon.
Click to expand...
There are also things which Protestants and Protestants disagree upon, and “sola scriptura” is one of them. Both here at CAF and on other websites we constantly see two or more posters from different Protestant churches giving conflicting explanations of what the term means.

In the present case of @Autocur’s point 3, which is wholly new to me, what is your view of this particular argument? My immediate reaction is that it sounds frankly preposterous, though I recognize there may be some underlying meaning that I haven’t noticed.
 
Last edited:
It is true, and is promulgated in Dei Verbum from V-II. Ch. 2:10
It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Autocur said:
James quotes Amos 9: 11-12 at the end, and that seems to be what ends the discussion. The idea here is that the council was nothing without its appeal to scripture, and it was only clarified because of that.
Click to expand...
Maybe the real point of this, is that James knew by the Holy Spirit which OT verse was needed in this situation, and, they also knew how to apply it correctly by the Holy Spirit. That “knowing” is, I think, more of an illustration of the teaching authority of the church. If scripture alone is the answer, why do so many well intentioned faithful people disagree on HOW and WHEN and WHAT VERSE to the extent that there are thousands of Protestant denominations?

And how, if we use the Bible as our SOLE authority, can we so blatantly ignore Jesus’ passionate desire that we be one, as he prayed so fervently in John 17 right before going to the cross?
 
What is true? Sorry, I’m missing your point here.
Click to expand...
I was referring to this comment by Autocur, but as I look back, I see that I may have misunderstood your question to TULIPed.
40.png
BartholomewB:
In the present case of @Autocur’s point 3, which is wholly new to me, what is your view of this particular argument?
Click to expand...
You were referring to point #3, which did not refer to my reply below. My mistake.
Autocur said:
it seems Protestant say scripture is the final authority, while Catholics say it is on equal authority as big T tradition and the authority of the church.
Click to expand...
THIS is what I meant by, it is true.
 
Last edited:
I was raised around Protestants who rejected the Fathers and councils completely. Yet still somehow arrived at traditional doctrines such as the Trinity. They followed an oral tradition, as all Christians do, but were in denial insisting all of their beliefs and traditions were 100% derived from private interpretation of the clear meaning of scripture.
 
Once again, forget the Catholic Church. That argument is a red herring. What about the Orthodox? What did they - what do they say?

That cannot be discounted as the Orthodox are the only other Church which contains all of the constitutive elements of a Church as founded by Christ, and which trace directly back to the Apostles.

Once again, the New Testament was decided by a Church council long after the Apostles had died. Time to start over?

Read the Didache. Earliest proto-catechism, written during the life of the Apostle John.

Not a peep about any writing of any sort.

No one questions your faith, or that you are a baptized Chrisiant, or that you believe in the Trinity or many other things. But, there is just too much missing from the puzzle in Protestantism to complete the picture as Christ drew it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top