Sola Scriptura and Acts 15

[De_Maria]

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.

True.

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.

We see it differently. We believe the discussion was ended when St. Peter stood up and decided what was to be done.

Acts 15: 7 After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. 9 He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts. 10 Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? 11 On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they.”[e] 12 The whole assembly fell silent, and they listened while Paul and Barnabas described the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

The idea here is that the council was nothing without its appeal to scripture, and it was only clarified because of that.

Well, that doesn’t seem likely. First of all, the definition of Sola Scriptura with which I’m most familiar is the idea that “Scripture is the sole rule of faith.” But, at the conclusion of the meeting, the Apostles don’t say, “The Scriptures say thus and so, therefore, we write to you…” Instead, the result of the meeting says, ““The apostles and the presbyters, your brothers, to the brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia of Gentile origin: greetings. 24 Since we have heard that some of our number [who went out] without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind, 25 we have with one accord decided to choose representatives and to send them to you along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 who have dedicated their lives to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 So we are sending Judas and Silas who will also convey this same message by word of mouth: 28 ‘It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, …”

Notice that the emphasis is on the authority of the Council and the Holy Spirit. No mention of Scripture.

1. This council was only valid because there were living apostles at the council.

Well, depending on which Protestant you speak to, for example, TULIPed says:

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

But, unlike TULIPed, the majority of the Protestants with which I’ve had contact, reject all creeds and councils, as you are probably referring to one of those type.

1. This council was valid only because it takes place in the pages of the Bible.

That’s a bit illogical. The Bible records that this Council took place. The Bible records that the Church had the authority to make these sorts of decisions as an example for future Christians to use in the execution of Church matters.

Do they actually believe that the Council was not valid until St. Luke took pen to paper and finalized his recollection of the proceedings? I really don’t know what to say.

Please help me clear this up.

Well, I hope that helps. But sometimes, Protestants are so illogical, I just want to throw my hands in the air and walk away.

 

[De_Maria]

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”.

Except that he isn’t speaking to a Protestant who holds your beliefs. He is speaking to the type of Protestant that I’m more familiar with, as well. One who denies that the Church has any authority and rejects all creeds and councils. And yes, they do frequently say that if it isn’t in the Bible, it is 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), …

Right. So, you really have no dog in this fight. Your understanding, although, in my opinion, still unbiblical, is closer to Catholic Teaching and not the one being highlighted, right now.

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.

Not sure what that means. But, I think what would be nice, is if Protestants got together and said, "OK, you guys don’t actually believe in Sola Scriptura, you believe in something which should be designated “Ultimately Scripture”. Since you do take into account some Church authority and some creeds. Whereas, you guys do believe in Sola Scriptura, because you reject everything else. And will someone please tell that group over there that “solo” Scriptura is ungrammatical and makes them sound like dufuses.

Actually, that would never work, because most of them would rebel against that authority, as well.

 

[ziapueblo]

I’ve heard people reference 2 Timothy 3:16-17

That is a very popular verse that sola Scriptura believers use but read in context it has nothing to do with that. Start at verse 10, St Paul first reminds St Timothy from whom he learned the faith, St Paul himself, then he reminds St Timothy of the Scriptures of his childhood, our Old Testament.

Check this out:


ZP

 

[De_Maria]

I always ask, “using the Bible and the Bible alone, where does the Bible teach the Bible alone?”

I’ve heard people reference 2 Timothy 3:16-17, 1 Corinthians 4:6, and Revelation 22:18-19.

Let’s go over those.

2 Timothy 3:16All scripture is inspired by God

Sure, all Scripture is inspired by God. But the idea that Scripture alone is inspired by God contradicts Scripture. Let’s turn to 2 Peter 1:21

2 Peter 1:21 for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.

Notice that the prophecy of Scripture, first was spoken by holy men influenced by God. Thus, holy men were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

and is useful

Does useful mean “necessary”? In fact, it doesn’t. It means profitable or beneficial. But that doesn’t say that the Scriptures have to be used.

for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

Who is doing the teaching, refuting, correction and training? Obviously, not the Scriptures alone. But a representative of the Church.

17 so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Notice that it is the Teaching which makes the man of God competent. We can see that it is the Teaching which is conducted by representatives of the Church which is the subject of this verse, because if you read 2 Tim, that is all that St. Paul talks about. How he is teaching St. Timothy and how St. Timothy must teach in turn and find other men to continue the Tradition. 2 Tim 2:2

1 Corinthians 4:6 I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, so that you may learn from us not to go beyond what is written, so that none of you will be inflated with pride in favor of one person over against another.

What does he mean by going beyond what is written? Does he mean Sacred Scripture? If he does, then he isn’t talking about the New Testament. Because at the time of the writing of this verse, the only recognized Scripture was the Old Testament.

So, if he says not to go beyond what is written in the Old Testament, then we can’t believe in Jesus Christ.

Therefore, he is not talking about going beyond what is written in Sacred Scripture. He is talking about going beyond what is written in this Epistle. What does this Epistle talk about?

1. Baptism, chapter 1 v. 13
2. The Eucharist chapter 10 v 16
3. Purgatory chapter 3 v 10-15

These are not things that Sola Scripturists believe in.

Revelation 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 19 and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book.

Again, as the Bible had not yet been compiled, the book in reference above, is the book of Revelation.

I hope that helps.

 

[Autocur]

But there are points where the New Testament does refer to itself as scripture right? Such as 2 Peter 3:15-16 and 1 Timothy 5:18. I believe Paul in 1 Corinthians also refers to his writings as the word of God. The passage in 2 Timothy also states that scripture equips man for EVERY good work, some translations say complete or perfect I believe. The main thing that makes me think this doesn’t prove Sola Scripture is Paul reference’s how Timothy had these books in his youth (I highly doubt Timothy was reading Revelation or something before it was even written). And James 1:4 says that patience makes a man 'perfect and entire", put I don’t see protestants coming out with “Sola Perseverance” anytime soon. Also, I think when you say that 1 Corinthians 4:6 means “don’t go beyond this epistle”, I humbly state that I do not believe this is the correct interpretation. My guess is he’s referring to the quotes from Job 5:13 and Psalm 94:11 that he makes in 1 Corinthians 3 19-20. It would make sense as he’s talking about arrogance and both of these passages are referring to arrogance. My guess is what he’s saying is "don’t do more than what these passages are saying as in, don’t disregard them.

 

[po18guy]

Those would be the Old Testament scriptures - prophecy fulfilled in Christ. The New Testament had neither been written, compiled nor canonized by the Church council at that time.

Anyway, where did Christ teach to hand out bibles and argue until He returns?

Division. The fruits of the reformation. “You shall know them by their fruits.”

Show me the unity!

 

[TULIPed]

Right. So, you really have no dog in this fight. Your understanding, although, in my opinion, still unbiblical, is closer to Catholic Teaching and not the one being highlighted, right now.

I appreciate your charity and diplomacy @De_Maria.

#blessedarethepeacemakers

 

[Dugtrio1]

The ironic thing about sola scriptura is that there’s thousands of Protestant denominations. So it’s quite hard to rely on the “bible alone” when everyone interpret it differently in the end anyway.

 

[Dan_Defender]

The ironic thing about sola scriptura is that there’s thousands of Protestant denominations.

Very true. Luther’s intention was to establish a Church that would replace the Catholic Church. But very soon the bitter fruits of division were reaped, with Zwingli and Calvin going their own way.

 

[ralfyman]

From what I remember, the selection of books to be included in the Christian Bible involved a lengthy period, and by then several beliefs and rites became part of the Church.

 

[ziapueblo]

Such as 2 Peter 3:15-16

St Peter mentions a letter that was written by St Paul but this letter is not referred to as Scripture. Think of it, the NT authors probably never suspected that their written would be compiled into what we call the Bible.

1 Timothy 5:18

St Paul is quoting Deuteronomy here and of course the Jews at the time referred to the OT as Scripture. As a matter of fact, when the early Christians spoke of the Scriptures it is the OT they are speaking of. It’s nit until the mid, late 3 century that we see that the various NT books being referred to as Scripture.

The main thing that makes me think this doesn’t prove Sola Scripture is Paul reference’s how Timothy had these books in his youth (I highly doubt Timothy was reading Revelation or something before it was even written).

Correct, St Paul is referring to the OT Scriptures.

ZP

 

[De_Maria]

But there are points where the New Testament does refer to itself as scripture right?
Such as 2 Peter 3:15-16 and 1 Timothy 5:18. I believe Paul in 1 Corinthians also refers to his writings as the word of God. The passage in 2 Timothy also states that scripture equips man for EVERY good work, some translations say complete or perfect I believe.

I think he’s referring to the teacher.

The main thing that makes me think this doesn’t prove Sola Scripture is Paul reference’s how Timothy had these books in his youth (I highly doubt Timothy was reading Revelation or something before it was even written). And James 1:4 says that patience makes a man 'perfect and entire", put I don’t see protestants coming out with “Sola Perseverance” anytime soon. Also, I think when you say that 1 Corinthians 4:6 means “don’t go beyond this epistle”, I humbly state that I do not believe this is the correct interpretation. My guess is he’s referring to the quotes from Job 5:13 and Psalm 94:11 that he makes in 1 Corinthians 3 19-20. It would make sense as he’s talking about arrogance and both of these passages are referring to arrogance. My guess is what he’s saying is "don’t do more than what these passages are saying as in, don’t disregard them.

Sounds good. I agree.

 

[Justin_Mary]

This council was valid only because it takes place in the pages of the Bible.

This “Sola scrptura” argument reminds me of Jesus telling the Pharisees, “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”

Likewise I believe several traditions believe the Church was made for the Bible, but the Bible was made for the Church.

The Church was first. & the Bible was made by the Church to support tradition. Forming a tradition from the Bible alone is impossible (Baptist, Methodist, Pentacostal, etc… all add to the Bible) & loses so much in translation.

 

[Dougbro1]

• 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.
• This council was only valid because there were living apostles at the council.
• This council was valid only because it takes place in the pages of the Bible.

The third one cracks me up.

 

[Cathoholic]

Welcome Autocur.

Amos as well as virtually all the Old Testament was written in ancient Hebrew (Aramaic - a Hebrew variant).

Ancient Hebrew was a consonantal language.

It was all consonants and no vowels.

The words in a consonantal language need to be filled in via oral tradition.

To give you kind of a quasi-example, let me give you one consonantal word.

Mn

What word is it? What word is mn?

Is it man?
Is it men?
Is it Amen?
Is it Many?
Is it money?
Is it Mini?
Is it Mono?
Is it Mane?
Is it Moon?
Is it Omen?
Is it Omni?
Is it Mona?
Is it muni?

You can’t know without orally filling in the gap.

If that is true for one word (“mn”), how much more true is that for a whole document of the Old Testament such as the book of Amos.

The Old Testament has a built-in necessity for oral tradition.

To appeal to Amos, is to appeal on behalf of . . . Oral tradition.

Hope that helps.

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[po18guy]

Bible alone. OK, fine.

I have yet to find one word in the dictionary which has but a single meaning or usage.

Now what?