Is the authority of a council biblical?

[Livindesert]

Either way I got to go. Have a good night all

 

[Standing Up]

So... You believe that...

The Church of Jerusalem
The Church of Antioch
The Church of Alexandria
The Church of Constantinople
and
The Church of Rome

... ALL conspired to fake the results of these councils and forged the concensus agreements?

Forgive me...

Conspiracy? No it's wide open eyes. Remember the "smoking gun" of Pope Leo I and Alexandria c450 when the change of the day/date of death was admitted from Thursday 14th death and Saturday 16th resurrection to Friday 15th death and Sunday sunrise resurrection?

After the downfall of Jerusalem, the Palestinian bishops were the first "to comprehend the propriety" of adopting the Roman/Alexandrian custom of observing Sunday sunrise resurrection.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Bit strong in the language, but c120, sometime after Jerusalem destruction, it was the Palestinian bishops who first "comprehended the propriety" of adopting the Roman custom of observing Sunday sunrise resurrection (and death on the 15th).

Again, remember the "smoking gun".

I disagree with your interpretation of the events. They settled on one way over the other. Both were Apostolic.

Forgive me...

 

[MrPolo]

Councils should consult Scripture yes. James concluded, as it is written.

I agree with pretty much everything you said in this post. Councils should consult Scripture, should not consult Scripture, and appeal to the Traditions in the Church and authority of the leaders just like in Acts 15.

 

[Standing Up]

Councils should consult Scripture yes. James concluded, as it is written.

Peter opened the door to the Jews and to the Gentiles. Paul and Barnabas confirming. James said, yep, this agrees with Scripture. Therefore, ...

Councils have no authority to contradict Scripture. Is that a Canon? Deut. and Rev. said, do not add, do not take away from.

I agree with pretty much everything you said in this post. Councils should consult Scripture, should not consult Scripture, and appeal to the Traditions in the Church and authority of the leaders just like in Acts 15.

Pretty much everything, except the conclusion?

See, the Pharisee sect could appeal to Tradition, could not appeal to Scripture (at least none is recorded), and also could appeal to authority of leaders.

James listened to them. He listened to Peter, Paul, and Barnabas. Then concluded, yes, "as this is written".

Any Council since then may likewise listen to elders, listen to Tradition, quote Clement of Rome or Melito, but until the Council says, AS DID JAMES, "as it is written", it is unbinding on the Church.

 

[Albion]

This doesn't seem like such a difficult discussion. The Council at Jerusalem is obviously Biblical since it is in the Bible. Other gatherings that men might put together are authoritative only if what they find or decree is itself correct...and that is to be determined soley by whether or not it is in accord with Scripture.

 

[ToxicReboMan]

Does a Church council have authority to make declarations and then pass it before the people to ask their approval?

Do we see a biblical model for the use of councils within The Church?

Mat 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

Forgive me...

The authority of the ecumenical councils is not at all Scriptural. Many man made doctrines and traditions have derived from them.

 

[MrPolo]

Pretty much everything, except the conclusion?

No, I agree with the conclusion too. A council cannot contradict Scripture.

"[The Magisterium] is not above the word of God, but serves it" (Dei Verbum. #10b)​

Don't forget too, that Peter's primary contribution was largely based on the private vision he had in Acts 10. Peter had already been baptizing Gentiles prior to Acts 15. The Council in Acts 15 adopted his precedent.

 

[Standing Up]

No, I agree with the conclusion too. A council cannot contradict Scripture.

"[The Magisterium] is not above the word of God, but serves it" (Dei Verbum. #10b)
​

Don't forget too, that Peter's primary contribution was largely based on the private vision he had in Acts 10. Peter had already been baptizing Gentiles prior to Acts 15. The Council in Acts 15 adopted his precedent.

Yes indeed, Peter did open the door to Jew and Gentile.

Sometimes God just has to remind us of what He already established.

 

[Albion]

Don't forget too, that Peter's primary contribution was largely based on the private vision he had in Acts 10. Peter had already been baptizing Gentiles prior to Acts 15. The Council in Acts 15 adopted his precedent.

I don't mean to diminish your point there, but the Council of Jerusalem is in a unique situatiuon--totally without comparison to any other church councils--beause its decision is enshrined in scripture which is itself accepted by us as the Word of God.

 

[tz620q]

I don't mean to diminish your point there, but the Council of Jerusalem is in a unique situatiuon--totally without comparison to any other church councils--beause its decision is enshrined in scripture which is itself accepted by us as the Word of God.

I'm scratching my head a bit. The Council of Jerusalem had apostolic authority before Luke wrote Acts and the members at the council would have thought it exceedingly strange for anyone to have insinuated that their rulings were not binding before a Greek physician wrote about it. I don't see that Sola Scriptura could apply to this event. So in my biased opinion, this is a good case for God's authority being passed on to his apostles to rule in his stead. To state my own take on this, the council members being good Jews recognized a loose canon of what we would acknowledge as scripture as well as a lot of other related writings as authoritative. But they also realized that in Christ they were following a new revelation, so I don't see them as thinking that they were bound by scripture, no matter how many prooftexts they used. I am sorry if I have misrepresented what you meant and as always stand ready to be corrected.

 

[Standing Up]

I'm scratching my head a bit. The Council of Jerusalem had apostolic authority before Luke wrote Acts and the members at the council would have thought it exceedingly strange for anyone to have insinuated that their rulings were not binding before a Greek physician wrote about it. I don't see that Sola Scriptura could apply to this event. So in my biased opinion, this is a good case for God's authority being passed on to his apostles to rule in his stead. To state my own take on this, the council members being good Jews recognized a loose canon of what we would acknowledge as scripture as well as a lot of other related writings as authoritative. But they also realized that in Christ they were following a new revelation, so I don't see them as thinking that they were bound by scripture, no matter how many prooftexts they used. I am sorry if I have misrepresented what you meant and as always stand ready to be corrected.

Good point. But (the ever present but), that is why James quotes OT scripture, instead of Paul or Peter. Today, however, we may quote from the whole in order to arrive at a decision.

So, the Pharisee sect appealed to Tradition and leaders. Peter and Paul and Barnabas appealed to Tradition and leaders. Then it was silent--the still small voice. James confirms the latter, saying this agrees with scripture, therefore ...

Councils since then should have been conducted in the same way. Here is Tradition. Here are leaders. We have opposing views therefrom. Silence. This agrees just "as it is written" in the OT (Deut. 4:2) and in the NT (Rev. 22:18-19).

 

[Jesdisciple]

So should issues not addressed in Scripture be resolved by tradition or leaders, or left open to individuals? I would think the latter, or by democracy if the decision affects a collective body.

 

[MamaZ]

Does a Church council have authority to make declarations and then pass it before the people to ask their approval?

Do we see a biblical model for the use of councils within The Church?

Mat 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

Forgive me...

A church council only has the authority to make declarations that are lined up to scripture.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

A church council only has the authority to make declarations that are lined up to scripture.

I agree... Here is what scripture says...

Mat 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

Forgive me...

 

[Livindesert]

I agree... Here is what scripture says...

Mat 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

Forgive me...

Anyone want to agree with me that we don't need Saint veneration? I only need one other person to agree with me so the Father will apply it.

 

[MamaZ]

I agree... Here is what scripture says...

Mat 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

Forgive me...

So men can proclaim something that may not be true and therefore God is to make an untruth truth?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Anyone want to agree with me that we don't need Saint veneration? I only need one other person to agree with me so the Father will apply it.

Actually you would be looking for an ecumenical decision... the proclomation of AXIOS by all present and then passed before all Christians not present. This can take years or even decades.

The Church is conciliar, and works by consensus.

So go ahead. Ask away... see if you can get a consensus.

BTW ~ We have to include those who came before us too. They are a part of this too.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

So men can proclaim something that may not be true and therefore God is to make an untruth truth?

If they did... it would never reach consensus. It would have no bearing nor any authority. The Holy Spirit would not have blessed it.

Forgive me...

 

[JacksLadder]

How come it says only two people are needed for a council? Also how come according to the Bible the Chair of Peter's vote is equal to a whole councils?