A Biblical Defense of Bible Alone + The Anointing to Understand It

[redleghunter]

?? LOL!! That's absolute lunacy.

Only because it was based on your false premise of what you defined as SS.

 

[redleghunter]

I’m more prone to believe in scriptura suprema than sola scriptura. Scriptura suprema means that the Bible is the supreme authority not the only authority.

How does what you say above differ from the following which comes from the Westminster Confession of Faith on the Holy Scriptures:

The Scriptures alone are the Word of God and, therefore, the only infallible rule for life and doctrine.--Summary statement.

The sentiments of this doctrine are embodied in Martin Luther’s famous speech at the Diet of Worms (1521) after he was asked to recant his teachings:

Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not retract anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience…. May God help me. Amen. ​

For Luther, the Scriptures, and the Scriptures alone, were the final arbiter of what we should believe.

Of course, like many core Christian convictions, the doctrine of sola Scriptura has often been misunderstood and misapplied. Unfortunately, some have used sola Scriptura as a justification for a “me, God, and the Bible” type of individualism, where the church bears no real authority and the history of the church is not considered when interpreting and applying Scripture. Thus, many churches today are almost ahistorical—cut off entirely from the rich traditions, creeds, and confessions of the church. They misunderstand sola Scriptura to mean that the Bible is the only authority rather than understanding it to mean that the Bible is the only infallible authority. Ironically, such an individualistic approach actually undercuts the very doctrine of sola Scriptura it is intended to protect. By emphasizing the autonomy of the individual believer, one is left with only private, subjective conclusions about what Scripture means. It is not so much the authority of Scripture that is prized as the authority of the individual.

The Reformers would not have recognized such a distortion as their doctrine of sola Scriptura. On the contrary, they were quite keen to rely on the church fathers, church councils, and the creeds and confessions of the church. Such historical rootedness was viewed not only as a means for maintaining orthodoxy but also as a means for maintaining humility. Contrary to popular perceptions, the Reformers did not view themselves as coming up with something new. Rather, they understood themselves to be recovering something very old—something that the church had originally believed but later twisted and distorted. The Reformers were not innovators but were excavators.

There are other extremes against which the doctrine of sola Scriptura protects us. While we certainly want to avoid the individualistic and ahistorical posture of many churches today, sola Scriptura also protects us from overcorrecting and raising creeds and confessions or other human documents (or ideas) to the level of Scripture. We must always be on guard against making the same mistake as Rome and embracing what we might call “traditionalism,” which attempts to bind the consciences of Christians in areas that the Bible does not. In this sense, sola Scriptura is a guardian of Christian liberty. But the biggest danger we face when it comes to sola Scriptura is not misunderstanding it. The biggest danger is forgetting it. We are prone to think of this doctrine purely in terms of sixteenth-century debates—just a vestige of the age-old Catholic-Protestant battles and irrelevant for the modern day. But the Protestant church in the modern day needs this doctrine now more than ever. The lessons of the Reformation have been largely forgotten, and the church, once again, has begun to rely on ultimate authorities outside of Scripture.
Understanding Sola Scriptura​

As for the Westminster Confession of Faith on Holy Scriptures:

I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable;[1] yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation.[2] Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that his will unto his Church;[3] and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing;[4] which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary;[5] those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.[6]

II. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these: Of the Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, I Chronicles, II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Of the New Testament: The Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, The Acts of the Apostles, Paul's Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians I, Corinthians II, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians I , Thessalonians II , To Timothy I , To Timothy II, To Titus, To Philemon, The Epistle to the Hebrews, The Epistle of James, The first and second Epistles of Peter, The first, second, and third Epistles of John, The Epistle of Jude, The Revelation of John. All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.[7]

III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.[8]

IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.[9]

V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.[10] And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.[11]

VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.[12] Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[14]

VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:[15] yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.[16]

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;[17] so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.[18] But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,[19] therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,[20] that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner;[21] and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.[22]

IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.[23]

X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.[24]​

Footnotes at link: Westminster Confession of Faith

 

[BNR32FAN]

That is a false, either/or fallacy, for James making his judgment simply does not mean that they "didn't have any scriptures to refer to in order to reach their decision," for the judgement of James was based on Scripture manifestly being fulfilled, and the restrictions were also Scriptural.

Can you please help me to understand how the scriptures that James quoted is directly discussing circumcision?

“After these things I will return, And I will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen; And I will build again the ruins thereof, And I will set it up: That the residue of men may seek after the Lord, And all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, Saith the Lord, who maketh these things known from of old.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭15:16-18‬

 

[BNR32FAN]

That is a false, either/or fallacy, for James making his judgment simply does not mean that they "didn't have any scriptures to refer to in order to reach their decision," for the judgement of James was based on Scripture manifestly being fulfilled, and the restrictions were also Scriptural.

I believe this was a unanimous revelation to all of the apostles and they determined it was of the Holy Spirit because they all agreed that circumcision was not necessary for salvation.

 

[BNR32FAN]

How does what you say above differ from the following which comes from the Westminster Confession of Faith on the Holy Scriptures:

The Scriptures alone are the Word of God and, therefore, the only infallible rule for life and doctrine.--Summary statement.

The sentiments of this doctrine are embodied in Martin Luther’s famous speech at the Diet of Worms (1521) after he was asked to recant his teachings:

Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not retract anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience…. May God help me. Amen. ​

For Luther, the Scriptures, and the Scriptures alone, were the final arbiter of what we should believe.

Of course, like many core Christian convictions, the doctrine of sola Scriptura has often been misunderstood and misapplied. Unfortunately, some have used sola Scriptura as a justification for a “me, God, and the Bible” type of individualism, where the church bears no real authority and the history of the church is not considered when interpreting and applying Scripture. Thus, many churches today are almost ahistorical—cut off entirely from the rich traditions, creeds, and confessions of the church. They misunderstand sola Scriptura to mean that the Bible is the only authority rather than understanding it to mean that the Bible is the only infallible authority. Ironically, such an individualistic approach actually undercuts the very doctrine of sola Scriptura it is intended to protect. By emphasizing the autonomy of the individual believer, one is left with only private, subjective conclusions about what Scripture means. It is not so much the authority of Scripture that is prized as the authority of the individual.

The Reformers would not have recognized such a distortion as their doctrine of sola Scriptura. On the contrary, they were quite keen to rely on the church fathers, church councils, and the creeds and confessions of the church. Such historical rootedness was viewed not only as a means for maintaining orthodoxy but also as a means for maintaining humility. Contrary to popular perceptions, the Reformers did not view themselves as coming up with something new. Rather, they understood themselves to be recovering something very old—something that the church had originally believed but later twisted and distorted. The Reformers were not innovators but were excavators.

There are other extremes against which the doctrine of sola Scriptura protects us. While we certainly want to avoid the individualistic and ahistorical posture of many churches today, sola Scriptura also protects us from overcorrecting and raising creeds and confessions or other human documents (or ideas) to the level of Scripture. We must always be on guard against making the same mistake as Rome and embracing what we might call “traditionalism,” which attempts to bind the consciences of Christians in areas that the Bible does not. In this sense, sola Scriptura is a guardian of Christian liberty. But the biggest danger we face when it comes to sola Scriptura is not misunderstanding it. The biggest danger is forgetting it. We are prone to think of this doctrine purely in terms of sixteenth-century debates—just a vestige of the age-old Catholic-Protestant battles and irrelevant for the modern day. But the Protestant church in the modern day needs this doctrine now more than ever. The lessons of the Reformation have been largely forgotten, and the church, once again, has begun to rely on ultimate authorities outside of Scripture.
Understanding Sola Scriptura​

As for the Westminster Confession of Faith on Holy Scriptures:

I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable;[1] yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation.[2] Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that his will unto his Church;[3] and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing;[4] which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary;[5] those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.[6]

II. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these: Of the Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, I Chronicles, II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Of the New Testament: The Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, The Acts of the Apostles, Paul's Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians I, Corinthians II, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians I , Thessalonians II , To Timothy I , To Timothy II, To Titus, To Philemon, The Epistle to the Hebrews, The Epistle of James, The first and second Epistles of Peter, The first, second, and third Epistles of John, The Epistle of Jude, The Revelation of John. All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.[7]

III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.[8]

IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.[9]

V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.[10] And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.[11]

VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.[12] Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[14]

VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:[15] yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.[16]

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;[17] so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.[18] But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,[19] therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,[20] that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner;[21] and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.[22]

IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.[23]

X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.[24]​

Footnotes at link: Westminster Confession of Faith

If your position is sola scriptura then the opinions of these people you’ve quoted is irrelevant. What they perceive to be true is not scripture. Martin Luther made a lot of mistakes. I don’t hold his writings of much value.

 

[redleghunter]

You completely missed the point of my post.

If your position is sola scriptura then the opinions of these people you’ve quoted is irrelevant. What they perceive to be true is not scripture. Martin Luther made a lot of mistakes. I don’t hold his writings of much value.

 

[GingerBeer]

I understand the Cath position

That's good, what is it, because I do not understand it.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Can you please help me to understand how the scriptures that James quoted is directly discussing circumcision?

“After these things I will return, And I will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen; And I will build again the ruins thereof, And I will set it up: That the residue of men may seek after the Lord, And all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, Saith the Lord, who maketh these things known from of old.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭15:16-18‬

It does not need to mention that circumcision was not required for salvation, for what that quoted text and the conversion of the Gentiles even before baptism signified was that of the coming of the Messiah, and the institution of the promised New Covenant, for which there "must also of necessity be the death of the testator" as Hebrews 9:16 later informs us.

That this was what was being recognized is also evidenced by inferred by the words of Peter,
"Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. "(Acts 15:10-11)

Which inferred that it was not only the literal act of circumcision that was abrogated, but all the burdensome ceremonial and dietary laws - which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation - (Hebrews 9:10) as necessary for salvation.

In addition, Abraham, the "father of faith," was justified by faith before circumcision.

Also, the classic commentator Adam Clarke states that that the Jews recognized what James quoted from Amos 9:11,12, "nearly as they now stand in the best editions of the Septuagint," as being a Messianic prophecy:

James quoted them as a prophecy of the calling of the Gentiles into the Church of God, it is evident the Jews must have understood them in that sense, otherwise they would have immediately disputed his application of them to the subject in question, and have rejected his conclusion by denying the premises. But that the words were thus understood by the ancient Jews, we have their own testimony. In Sanhedr. fol. 69, we have these remarkable words: “Rabbi Nachman said to Rabbi Isaac, ‘Whence art thou taught when Bar Naphli will come?’ He saith unto him, ‘Who is this Bar Naphli?’ The other replied, ‘He is the Messiah.’ ‘Dost thou then call the Messiah Bar Naphli?’ ‘Yes,’ said he, ‘for it is written, In that day I will build again the tabernacle of David

Now if you dispute that James' invoking Amos 9:11,12 signified this new covenant with its justification by grace thru faith as Abraham appropriated before circumcision, then you must explain just why he would quote it as substantiating his judgment.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

That's good, what is it, because I do not understand it.

I really have a hard time believing you are sincere by now.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I believe this was a unanimous revelation to all of the apostles and they determined it was of the Holy Spirit because they all agreed that circumcision was not necessary for salvation.

Which is another manifestation of "either/or thinking. What was the reason that there was all in conference? If this was a unanimous revelation apart from Scripture then invoking it was basically just window dressing. Mormonic prophets also claim revelation apart from Scripture, but the latter reproves them.

Instead, the revelation or illumination that the vision to Peter, and the conversion of the Gentiles (and Peter eating with them uncircumcised) and Amos 9:11,12 signified was that this was a result of the institution of of the new covenant with its justification by grace thru faith, like as Abraham had appropriated before circumcision. Thus Peter's works not to place a heavy Jewish yoke on them.

 

[GingerBeer]

I really have a hard time believing you are sincere by now.

I have an even harder time believing that it matters.

 

[BNR32FAN]

It does not need to mention that circumcision was not required for salvation, for what that quoted text and the conversion of the Gentiles even before baptism signified was that of the coming of the Messiah, and the institution of the promised New Covenant, for which there "must also of necessity be the death of the testator" as Hebrews 9:16 later informs us.

That this was what was being recognized is also evidenced by inferred by the words of Peter,
"Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. "(Acts 15:10-11)

Which inferred that it was not only the literal act of circumcision that was abrogated, but all the burdensome ceremonial and dietary laws - which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation - (Hebrews 9:10) as necessary for salvation.

In addition, Abraham, the "father of faith," was justified by faith before circumcision.

Also, the classic commentator Adam Clarke states that that the Jews recognized what James quoted from Amos 9:11,12, "nearly as they now stand in the best editions of the Septuagint," as being a Messianic prophecy:

James quoted them as a prophecy of the calling of the Gentiles into the Church of God, it is evident the Jews must have understood them in that sense, otherwise they would have immediately disputed his application of them to the subject in question, and have rejected his conclusion by denying the premises. But that the words were thus understood by the ancient Jews, we have their own testimony. In Sanhedr. fol. 69, we have these remarkable words: “Rabbi Nachman said to Rabbi Isaac, ‘Whence art thou taught when Bar Naphli will come?’ He saith unto him, ‘Who is this Bar Naphli?’ The other replied, ‘He is the Messiah.’ ‘Dost thou then call the Messiah Bar Naphli?’ ‘Yes,’ said he, ‘for it is written, In that day I will build again the tabernacle of David

Now if you dispute that James' invoking Amos 9:11,12 signified this new covenant with its justification by grace thru faith as Abraham appropriated before circumcision, then you must explain just why he would quote it as substantiating his judgment.

Thank you for elaborating my friend. My point was only to show that the scriptures did not make a definitive statement regarding the abolishment of circumcision and that the apostles had to make a judgement call on the subject to reach their decision. Both what you have said and Acts 15:19 make it clear that they had to make a judgement call because the scriptures didn’t specifically address this particular situation. If the scriptures had addressed this situation it would’ve been a simple quoting of the scriptures to resolve the dispute rather than calling a meeting with the apostles and elders to reach a decision.

 

[Neogaia777]

Thank you for elaborating my friend. My point was only to show that the scriptures did not make a definitive statement regarding the abolishment of circumcision and that the apostles had to make a judgement call on the subject to reach their decision. Both what you have said and Acts 15:19 make it clear that they had to make a judgement call because the scriptures didn’t specifically address this particular situation. If the scriptures had addressed this situation it would’ve been a simple quoting of the scriptures to resolve the dispute rather than calling a meeting with the apostles and elders to reach a decision.

Hopefully led and guided by the Holy Spirit, I would hope...

Like Paul's conclusion that circumcision was really about the heart... And who was a (true) Jew in their heart...

God Bless!

 

[BNR32FAN]

Which is another manifestation of "either/or thinking. What was the reason that there was all in conference? If this was a unanimous revelation apart from Scripture then invoking it was basically just window dressing. Mormonic prophets also claim revelation apart from Scripture, but the latter reproves them.

Instead, the revelation or illumination was that what conversion of the Gentiles and Amos 9:11,12 signified was that this was a result of the institution of of the new covenant with its justification by grace thru faith, like as Abraham had appropriated before circumcision.

Yet even tho Abraham was justified by faith he was still circumcised. So the necessity of circumcision was not to intended to justify someone but was still necessary for Jews to receive the old covenant because it was a commandment of God. Which is why the meeting was held and a decision was made. In the end it was not sola scriptura that was the determining factor it was the collective guidance of the Holy Spirit revealing to them God’s will.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Hopefully led and guided by the Holy Spirit, I would hope...

Like Paul's conclusion that circumcision was really about the heart... And who was a (true) Jew in their heart...

God Bless!

Yes both Paul and James were very educated in Jewish law’s and the OT scriptures and they were not able to reach a decision simply by quoting the scriptures. I believe it was by revelation that James was able to determine the meaning of Amos 9:11-12 because it is quite a mysterious passage with no obvious or direct relation to circumcision.

 

[Neogaia777]

Yes both Paul and James were very educated in Jewish law’s and the OT scriptures and they were not able to reach a decision simply by quoting the scriptures. I believe it was by revelation that James was able to determine the meaning of Amos 9:11-12 because it is quite a mysterious passage with no obvious or direct relation to circumcision.

I'm not following...? What does that scripture have to do with circumcision, and how did they reach that conclusion again...?

God Bless!

 

[BNR32FAN]

I'm not following...? What does that scripture have to do with circumcision, and how did they reach that conclusion again...?

God Bless!

Honestly I don’t know my friend. I don’t see the connection although James quoted these verses in Acts 15 when he gave his judgement on the subject. I believe they reached the decision by ecumenical council guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Thank you for elaborating my friend. My point was only to show that the scriptures did not make a definitive statement regarding the abolishment of circumcision and that the apostles had to make a judgement call on the subject to reach their decision. Both what you have said and Acts 15:19 make it clear that they had to make a judgement call because the scriptures didn’t specifically address this particular situation. If the scriptures had addressed this situation it would’ve been a simple quoting of the scriptures to resolve the dispute rather than calling a meeting with the apostles and elders to reach a decision.

But which examples the misconception of SS as meaning something must be spelled out in order for it to be a valid example of SS, but which is simply not the case. Acts 15 was a solidly Scriptural judgement. Amos was a Messianic prophecy; Abraham was justified by faith before circumcision; and beyond that the New Covenant was prophesied; the death of Christ instituted it; the kingdom was not longer physical but spiritual; Scripture promised the Holy spirit being poured out on all flesh; the Lord had manifested this in the conversion of the Gentiles; and thus without any actual contradiction we have the Scriptural conclusion that salvation was not as under the Old Covenant, but by grace thru faith (as with Abraham as Paul explained in Rm. 4, circumcision not being required).

The basis and meaning of Scripture as regards what was promised and its fulfillment and what this entailed was revealed by the Holy Spirit, but the decision was not be revelation that was apart from Scripture, with some indirect verses cited for support.

That said, unlike Catholic popes and councils, men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby, in conflation with what had been written.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Yet even tho Abraham was justified by faith he was still circumcised. So the necessity of circumcision was not to intended to justify someone but was still necessary for Jews to receive the old covenant because it was a commandment of God. Which is why the meeting was held and a decision was made. In the end it was not sola scriptura that was the determining factor it was the collective guidance of the Holy Spirit revealing to them God’s will.

Once again you have a false concept of SS and are speaking like Catholics who seek support for their magisterium autocratically decreeing doctrine.

It was evident to Peter and James (and Paul and Barnabas) that the salvation of the Gentiles was not according the Old Covenant, and which meant that the kingdom believers are placed in is no longer physical, (John 18:36) thus the physical sign was not required, nor the rest of the yoke.

Do you really think Peter did not perceive a change in covenant when he was told the Gentiles were not unclean, and which perception is indicated by him speaking against placing the new believers under the burdensome yoke neither they nor their fathers could bear. Rather than James getting a revelation and using some Scripture verses to justify it by, by the Spirit he saw what Scripture prophesied had come to pass, and the meaning this meant.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Yes both Paul and James were very educated in Jewish law’s and the OT scriptures and they were not able to reach a decision simply by quoting the scriptures.

SS does not mean doctrine being established simply by quoting the scriptures, or necessarily by explicit texts, bu includes that which "by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture" as Westminster says, and which includes beliefs such as the Triune God.

I believe it was by revelation that James was able to determine the meaning of Amos 9:11-12 because it is quite a mysterious passage with no obvious or direct relation to circumcision.

James would hardly be thinking of Amos 9:11-12 in isolation, while revelation of what Scripture is being fulfilled and its meaning is different than a revelation apart from Scripture.

And note that Peter's revelation that the Gentiles were not unclean signified a covenantal change, thanks be to God.