Sola Scriptura

[Rick Otto]

It is clear that there was a Holy Tradition that began with the original apostles--a tradition on which decisions were made and from which guidance was sought alongside Scripture, and that the Church is the repository of that Tradition.

Then what did they do with it?
A tradition on which decisions were made?
It sounds like it's very clear, but I have no idea what it is.
Which part of it isn't in scripture & which apostle taught it?
Is there anything specific we can acknowlege as "a tradition began with apostles & on which decisions were made.
It sounds as real as concrete, but I can't put my finger on whatever exactly any of it is.
Got tradition?

 

[Anoetos]

I haven't been keeping up with this thread because I've been busy with other things for the last few days. I just just skimming through and thought I would answer this one and the post it was referring to.

I've attended services at Jewish synagogues and learned of their their history and traditions.

My theory is that any religion with the same historical roots as Rabbinical Judaism will have much of the same practices, traditions, organization, etc. and will read the Bible much the same way.

I predict that any Church that can trace the history of it's practice all the way back to first generation of apostles will observe a religion that is noticeably similar and in many ways identical to the Jewish religion. I also predict that churches that claim to descend from the apostles by cannot historically verify their claim will not have a practice that is similar to the Jews. On the flip side, I predict that those that do not have a practice similar to the Jews will not be able to historically verify their claim to apostolic succession.

I have observed the similarities I was looking for on all levels at both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. I have observed fewer similarities in the reformation churches and even fewer in the protestant churches.

Some Baptists claim that the Baptist practice has line of descent that goes all the way back to the beginning and they were never part of the ranks of the Catholic but there is no historical evidence to support this claim. And there are little or no similarities between Baptist practice and Jewish practice.

This is highly debatable. It seems apparent that the early Christians took elements of synagogue worship and molded them to accommodate gentiles, whether this is authentically Jewish in the same way that temple worship was is debatable even among Jews.

But if the litmus test is how closely a form of worship resembles synagogue practice, a strong case can be made for any church which continues a liturgical presentation of Word and Sacrament, be it ever so informal.

What you did NOT see in synagogue worship was peculiar garb for clerics beyond a tallit and yarmulke (which every man could and did wear), and you did not see a presiding clergy possessed of a peculiar "charism" handed down by pedigree for the confection of sacraments or preaching, and you did not see private confession of sin prior to reception of a ritual meal.

On the other hand, what you did see conforms organically with what I see every Sunday in my church. I know this because I live in Detroit, attended high school with hundreds of Jewish kids and attended services with them on several occasions.

 

[Montalban]

3. Acts 15 is a wonderful example of Sola Scriptura. Although you may disagree with the ARBITRATION (another issue for another day and thread), what do we see in Acts 15? ACCOUNTABILITY! (the very point where the RCC disagrees with all others). And what rule/canon/norma normans is employed? RC Tradition? No, that's not so much as even mentioned - much less used (for anything). What is used? Read verses 15-19. Yup. It's SCRIPTURE. The "therefore" in verse 19 refers to SCRIPTURE. There was a position that they concluded was normed by Scripture. Do you know what using Scripture normatively is called, that practice? Yes, that's right. It's called Sola Scriptura.

How is it a 'wonderful example'?

They met in a way not based on scripture to decide - and their decision is not based on scripture.

They looked at scripture to say that gentiles should be included BUT this did not say that gentiles should not be bound to Jewish laws.

 

[Kepha]

As you know, Sola Scripture is a practice in norming (the evaluation of disputed positions among us), not in hermeneutics.

From how you described it in your example, it's based on self interpretation from a 'ruler' you described as sufficient since it can only be useful when understood correctly. Well, we both know it isn't that simple nor does it truly work that way. I've always found that norma norman teaching a little on the hokey side to be honest since it never gets to the heart of the matter within the Protestant denominations. It's simple window dressing to make sS advocatess continue with a false sense of security that they're right.

I CAN (and frankly do) agree with you that self designating self as the sole, authoritative/unaccountable interpreter is both unsound and dangerous. But take that up with the only one that does that (the RC Denomination) and in a thread about interpretation. Okay?

Straw man. But then again, that isn't for this thread anyway now is it.

How is it a 'wonderful example'?

They met in a way not based on scripture to decide - and their decision is not based on scripture.

They looked at scripture to say that gentiles should be included BUT this did not say that gentiles should not be bound to Jewish laws.

It's a terrible example however when one makes self the sole intepreter of their 'ruler' then such an illogical conclusion is well............logical.

 

[Montalban]

It' undermines the so-called norma normans argument here because the Apostles taught by both spoken word, and scripture

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

As you know, Sola Scripture is a practice in norming (the evaluation of disputed positions among us), not in hermeneutics.

.

it's based on self interpretation

No. It's not a practice of interpretation at all. By self or any other.

I CAN (and frankly do) agree with you that self designating self as the sole, authoritative/unaccountable interpreter is both unsound and dangerous. But take that up with the only one that does that (the RC Denomination) and in a thread about interpretation. Okay?

that isn't for this thread anyway now is it.

Correct. I agree with your rebuke of the RCC when it appoints itself as the sole, authoritarian, unaccountable "interpreter" of the Scripture in the heart of itself and the Tradition of itself. But correct, that is off topic here, as much as I agree with you on that.





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

3. Acts 15 is a wonderful example of Sola Scriptura. Although you may disagree with the ARBITRATION (another issue for another day and thread), what do we see in Acts 15? ACCOUNTABILITY! (the very point where the RCC disagrees with all others). And what rule/canon/norma normans is employed? RC Tradition? No, that's not so much as even mentioned - much less used (for anything). What is used? Read verses 15-19. Yup. It's SCRIPTURE. The "therefore" in verse 19 refers to SCRIPTURE. There was a position that they concluded was normed by Scripture. Do you know what using Scripture normatively is called, that practice? Yes, that's right. It's called Sola Scriptura.


.

They met in a way not based on scripture to decide - and their decision is not based on scripture.

1. Decision relates to arbitration, surely you know that.


2. What rule did they use? It specifically tells us. Read verses 15-19.


3. What the Apostles taught (and why) is an interesting topic, just entirely unrelated to this one. This one is about what rule/canon/norma normans is most sound as WE (none of us are Apostles) evaluate NOW (not in 42,763 BC), the disputed dogmas among US.

They looked at scripture

... normatively. Do you know what that's called? Yes, of course. It's called "Sola Scriptura."


Did they look at Greek Orthodox Tradition? Did they regard any denomination as exempt from truth if the self same alone so claimed such for self alone? Nope.






.

 

[Standing Up]

It' undermines the so-called norma normans argument here because the Apostles taught by both spoken word, and scripture

Only scripture.


Acts 15 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

If you don't get it, Paul spells it out here:

Gal. 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

 

[Montalban]

1. Decision relates to arbitration, surely you know that.


2. What rule did they use? It specifically tells us. Read verses 15-19.

I already covered that.

The verses from the OT ONLY look at including the Gentiles. NOT on what laws/customs will apply to them.

They could well have still required Gentiles to undergo circumcision.

That's also not even touching upon the nature of the Council itself which is not based on scripture.

So my question to you still stands.

 

[Rick Otto]

Apply the same laws/customs that were in effect in the time scripture relates: no circumcision required in Abraham's time. Moses wasn't born yet.
If a council is clarifying an issue using the spiritual principles in scripture, it is naturaly scripture based.

 

[Montalban]

So, circumcision was required at the time of the Apostles, but we have people transporting back to the time before Moses for some reason to see that it wasn't required then, therefore it wasn't required at the time of the Apostles, shown by the Apostles quoting something NOT ABOUT CIRCUMCISION but about drawing in Gentiles

One of the most sinuous applications of evidence ever - considering that its the MOSSAIC council some have suggested was the precedent for the one in Acts 15!!!

 

[Fireinfolding]

Only scripture.


Acts 15 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

If you don't get it, Paul spells it out here:

Gal. 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

Romans 4:10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

 

[Montalban]

Romans 4:10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

where's it evident that in Acts 15 they relied on Romans?

In Romans, what scripture did Paul rely upon?

 

[Montalban]

So if I can work this out....

In Acts 15 they relied upon scripture saying that circumcision wasn't necessary - though they don't evidence this at all. They took scripture from either Romans - which wasn't written yet (and itself relies on what OT evidence???) or from something prior to Moses which itself isn't so apparent because the Jews themselves reading that same scripture had practiced circumcision for so long that it's likely that even the Apostles themselves had been circumcised.

That they came together in the way they did, not itself dependent upon scripture shows that they norma normans believed in sola scriptura?

 

[ivebeenshown]

So if I can work this out....

In Acts 15 they relied upon scripture saying that circumcision wasn't necessary - though they don't evidence this at all. They took scripture from either Romans - which wasn't written yet (and itself relies on what OT evidence???) or from something prior to Moses which itself isn't so apparent because the Jews themselves reading that same scripture had practiced circumcision for so long that it's likely that even the Apostles themselves had been circumcised.

That they came together in the way they did, not itself dependent upon scripture shows that they norma normans believed in sola scriptura?

Hmmm...

14 Simon[a] has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

16 “‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’—
18 things known from long ago.[c]

19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

It doesn't look to me like James drew his judgment directly from the Scriptures at all. The Scripture he mentioned said nothing about making it easy or difficult for the Gentiles, or about circumcision, or blood.

 

[Standing Up]

Hmmm...

14 Simon[a] has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

16 “‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’—
18 things known from long ago.[c]

19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

It doesn't look to me like James drew his judgment directly from the Scriptures at all. The Scripture he mentioned said nothing about making it easy or difficult for the Gentiles, or about circumcision, or blood.

There is that. Read Paul's account in Galatians.

 

[Montalban]

Apparently they read into the Council Galatians which wasn't written then!

Apparently too Galatians itself is based on some OT scripture that we haven't yet seen

But alas the "Go research this for us" response just doesn't cut it, anyway

 

[Montalban]

It doesn't look to me like James drew his judgment directly from the Scriptures at all. The Scripture he mentioned said nothing about making it easy or difficult for the Gentiles, or about circumcision, or blood.

People may go on with backslapping and congratulating people for addressing this issue, but the fact is it's not been addressed.

The Apostles quote scripture only insofar as bringing into the fold the Gentiles.

Nothing about how the Gentiles are to be bound by Jewish law/custom

I expect however that this will continue to be missed

 

[Anoetos]

People may go on with backslapping and congratulating people for addressing this issue, but the fact is it's not been addressed.

The Apostles quote scripture only insofar as bringing into the fold the Gentiles.

Nothing about how the Gentiles are to be bound by Jewish law/custom

I expect however that this will continue to be missed

The council of Jerusalem expected Gentile believers to adhere to the Noachide prescription. This was a summary of those moral and dietary laws given to men from Adam through Noah that formed a common template for Gentile associate membership with Israel; i.e. the necessary observance to be considered a "righteous Gentile" (ger zedek) short of circumcision and total legal commitment. These can be found in the first 9 chapters of Genesis.

The decision represents a scriptural compromise between Peter/Paul and those who held out for complete conversion (of whom many theologians argue James may have been the most important voice).

Montalban, I am not sure what you're asking for here.

 

[Montalban]

The council of Jerusalem expected Gentile believers to adhere to the Noachide prescription.

Yes, I understood this sinuous use of evidence already.

You have Mossaic law. Somehow they're abrogating Mossaic law and going back to Noachide law, although some have argued that the council itself is based on Moses' time.

This isn't even touching upon the fact that even if true is not so obvious because the Jews certainly didn't think that Gentiles would be so exempted, because they had laws saying that Gentiles coming under their control (such as slaves) would be burdened with the same law.

Montalban, I am not sure what you're asking for here.

I didn't ask anything in that post.