Sola Scriptura and the Council of Jerusalem

[Shibboleth]

Catholic4aReasn:

But the Council of Jerusalem didn’t have the teachings of Jesus in the scriptures. They did not rely on scripture alone, in fact they did not rely on the scriptures at all, but rather on their own authority under the guidance of the holy spirit (Acts 15:28).

In Christ,
Nancy

Ahh… but you misunderstand that which you are confronting. Lutherans do not put their faith in the Scriptures. Our view of the Bible comes from our faith in the Gospel. Lutherans focus on proclaiming the Gospel and trust that faith in the Bible will follow from faith in Christ. This is why we are “sola scriptura” and not “solo scriptura.”

And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.

We are called to believe in the words of Peter. Of course where do the words of Peter reside…

 

[Tammy111]

I was thinking about sola scriptura and I was trying to think of a good way to prove it wrong and I thought of the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. In the council of Jerusalem Paul went to the apostles to ask whether the gentiles needed to be circumcised in order to become Christians. The apostles came to the conclusion that they did not need to be circumcised. They did not do this using any scriptures. They assembled to consider the matter and then Peter spoke and said it was not necisary for conversion.

There must be some kind of infallable decision maker in this.

Someone might say, “this is in the bible though.” If you say this you are missing the point. The point is that in the bible scripture is not always used to decide the beliefs.

I would like to here peoples thoughts on this.

This is an excellent example of how the early Church made decesions.

 

[guanophore]

I was thinking about sola scriptura and I was trying to think of a good way to prove it wrong and I thought of the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. In the council of Jerusalem Paul went to the apostles to ask whether the gentiles needed to be circumcised in order to become Christians. The apostles came to the conclusion that they did not need to be circumcised. They did not do this using any scriptures. They assembled to consider the matter and then Peter spoke and said it was not necisary for conversion.

There must be some kind of infallable decision maker in this.

Someone might say, “this is in the bible though.” If you say this you are missing the point. The point is that in the bible scripture is not always used to decide the beliefs.

I would like to here peoples thoughts on this.

I recommend you do a search of sola scriptura here. There are pages and pages of good refutations. One of my favorites is that this man-made doctrine is not in the Bible.