Why Sola Scriptura isn't God's plan

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Nobody is saying scripture is unimportant, or that it should not be turned to. The council in Jerusalem was clearly Spirit-led in their interpretation. Today, however, there are so many interpretations which conflict -- that is not the work of the Spirit.

This thread is not about hermeneutics (interpretation of the words in Scripture) it's about norming (evaluating the correctness/validity/truthfulness of doctrines).


If you have a problem with conflicting interpretations, consider that NONE agree with the interpretations of the RCC or those of the EO or those of the LDS in spite of each claiming that theirs CANNOT be wrong and thus are unaccountable.


The Council of Jerusalem used Sola Scriptura.


If you agree that views CAN be wrong, then you have embraced that views are accountable (including yours and those of your denomination) and you have embraced norming and the need for a sound norma normans. And that takes us to be issue of this thread: what serves as the best rule in this evaluation of the disputed doctrines among us? What among us all is MOST objectively knowable by all and alterable by none, MOST ecumenically (say by 50,000 denominations) and historically (say to 1400 BC) embraced, MOST inspired by God, MOST reliable? Those that reject the Rule of Scripture never offer a better alternative.




.

 

[bbbbbbb]

This thread is not about hermeneutics (interpretation of the words in Scripture) it's about norming (evaluating the correctness/validity/truthfulness of doctrines).


If you have a problem with conflicting interpretations, consider that NONE agree with the interpretations of the RCC or those of the EO or those of the LDS in spite of each claiming that theirs CANNOT be wrong and thus are unaccountable.


The Council of Jerusalem used Sola Scriptura.


If you agree that views CAN be wrong, then you have embraced that views are accountable (including yours and those of your denomination) and you have embraced norming and the need for a sound norma normans. And that takes us to be issue of this thread: what serves as the best rule in this evaluation of the disputed doctrines among us? What among us all is MOST objectively knowable by all and alterable by none, MOST ecumenically (say by 50,000 denominations) and historically (say to 1400 BC) embraced, MOST inspired by God, MOST reliable? Those that reject the Rule of Scripture never offer a better alternative..

Not only do they not offer a better alternative, they (in my experience) fail to offer one which is agreed upon by others outside of their own denomination. With the Bible we have a document which virtually all Christians and denominations are agreed upon.

 

[Timothew]

Nobody is saying scripture is unimportant, or that it should not be turned to. The council in Jerusalem was clearly Spirit-led in their interpretation. Today, however, there are so many interpretations which conflict -- that is not the work of the Spirit.

My answer was in response to OrthoCat's question here:

Originally Posted by ortho_cat

I am curious about one other thing, though. Do protestants think that the council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts was decided by scripture also?
​

By asking the question, OrthoCat seemed to be saying that the council of Jerusalem was not guided by scripture. I just took my practice of actually going to the scripture to find out what it says and applied it in this case as well. When I did this I found out that the Jerusalem Council was indeed guided by scripture. So the idea that Sola Scriptura isn't God's Plan because the Apostles didn't use it in the Council of Jerusalem is completely flawed because we've found out that the apostles did use Sola Scriptura, although it was not called that until later.

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

Nobody is saying scripture is unimportant, or that it should not be turned to. The council in Jerusalem was clearly Spirit-led in their interpretation. Today, however, there are so many interpretations which conflict -- that is not the work of the Spirit.

Um.... But YOU said Scripture is meaningless without some sort of tradition.

Scripture is meaningless without some sort of tradition. Whether that tradition be "This is the canon" or "This is what this passage means."

http://www.christianforums.com/t7546106/#post57045825

It seems to me that you're contradicting yourself here. Would you please clarify yourself here?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

This thread is not about hermeneutics (interpretation of the words in Scripture) it's about norming (evaluating the correctness/validity/truthfulness of doctrines).


If you have a problem with conflicting interpretations, consider that NONE agree with the interpretations of the RCC or those of the EO or those of the LDS in spite of each claiming that theirs CANNOT be wrong and thus are unaccountable.


The Council of Jerusalem used Sola Scriptura.


If you agree that views CAN be wrong, then you have embraced that views are accountable (including yours and those of your denomination) and you have embraced norming and the need for a sound norma normans. And that takes us to be issue of this thread: what serves as the best rule in this evaluation of the disputed doctrines among us? What among us all is MOST objectively knowable by all and alterable by none, MOST ecumenically (say by 50,000 denominations) and historically (say to 1400 BC) embraced, MOST inspired by God, MOST reliable? Those that reject the Rule of Scripture never offer a better alternative..

Not only do they not offer a better alternative, they (in my experience) fail to offer one which is agreed upon by others outside of their own denomination. With the Bible we have a document which virtually all Christians and denominations are agreed upon.

Bingo


And for our Orthodox brothers and sisters, it's ALSO the earliest Tradition - which they insist thus is trumping all later ones.



.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

The Council of Jerusalem used Sola Scriptura.

Very well. Let's take a look at the council then, shall we? Here is a link to Acts 15. I won't quote it all here, because it is long, but I will refer to portions of it.

Acts 15 NIV

First, we have in verse 5, a pharisee convert who claims that all gentile converts must be circumcised. That is certainly an interesting idea, I wonder where he came up with it? Well, from scripture, of course, as seen here:

9Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”

In fact, if you go through the entire OT, you will find that circumcision is indeed binding for all jews, who were considered the people of God. There is no verses that would lead anyone to think otherwise. Therefore, by using sola scriptura (as the pharisee did here) one would logically be led to believe that gentile converts must (and should) be circumcised. Why shouldn't it say that? The OT said nothing about Christian converts. There simply was no 'standard' or 'precedent' for them to abide by. So therefore, the pharisee was justified, at least in the eyes of sola scriptura, to demand that the gentiles be circumcised.

Wait though, didn't James use scripture as well? Why yes he did, as we see here:

16“‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17that the remnant of men may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’b
18that have been known for ages.c

However, this verse says nothing about gentile converts to Christianity, nor does it say whether they should obey the Laws of Moses or the covenant of old. James was simply asserting here by using scriptural support, that gentiles are now to be welcomed to be people of God as well as jews. (Using scriptural support is nothing new in councils, all decisions use scripture to support their decisions, however the key difference is that they do not use ONLY scripture). Notice also that Paul believed that converts do not need to be circumcised, while James originally believed they should be. If scripture was their only source for formulating doctrine here, then why didn't they agree with each other? Clearly because there was no biblical precedent for such a case.

So here we have the decision of James:

19“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead 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. 21For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

Interesting decision. He decides (no doubt after consulting with the others) that the gentiles should obey some of the laws of moses, which does not include circumcision. Was this decision made relying entirely upon scripture? Of course not! I challenge you to find anywhere in the OT where such a rule for converts, or anything remotely like it, is laid out. It is simply 'not written'. Again, if they were to follow scripture alone, they would no doubt conclude that the converts should obey the laws and be circumcised, as the pharisee stated, because that was the rule for the jews, who were God's people. As you can see, the verse that James quotes says nothing about this decision or the details which are contained within. All it suggests is that God will come for the gentiles as well. He used scripture to support his decision, but in no way did he use scripture alone while formulating it (again, how could he when there is no such precent established?) To say otherwise is simply ignoring the obvious.

Make no mistake, this was indeed real church doctrine which was established here; this was a big deal. This decision was binding on all local congregations. So what are we to conclude then if scripture alone didn't guide their decision on the formulation of doctrine? Well, simply that the church was guided by the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not limited to acting through scripture alone in such matters. To attempt to confine the action of the Holy Spirit is indeed a grave error. We must have faith that the Spirit guided the church leaders faithfully and in the appropriate direction to which he saw fit, the same assumption that we should (and do) make regarding the later universal councils. To assume otherwise is to lose faith that the Holy Spirit is alive, present, and active in the church. It is the holy spirit which ultimately acts, whether he chooses scripture or other means to convey his truths.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Bingo


And for our Orthodox brothers and sisters, it's ALSO the earliest Tradition - which they insist thus is trumping all later ones.



.

Whoops, no one said trump here (well, other than you). What was said is that earlier tradition is given more importance. Of course, as we all know, scripture does not interpret itself, which is why the earliest and most prevalent interpretations of scripture are given the most weight.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Whoops, no one said trump here. What was said is that earlier tradition is given more importance.

Ah, okay - thanks for the clarification...


Is it fair to state your position this way: Earliest tradition is given more importance over later so that later is understood as "under" earlier? For example, the earlier Tradition of the Roman Pope as being "first among equals" rather than the later one of "infallible superior?" The early one gets dominance and the later is viewed under and in light of it?


Of course, the earliest Christian Tradition is the most objective, knowable, ecumenically and historically embraced: The New Testament. Do you agree?

Of course, as we all know, scripture does not interpret itself, which is why the earliest and most prevalent interpretations of scripture are given the most weight.

If this thread were about hermeneutics, I'd give a big "amen" to that, but such would be a rule violation (hijacking isn't allowed). But of course, Tradition does not interpret itself, either. The difficulty I see is at least with Romans 3:28 - EVERYONE knows what the verse is that we are "interpreting" - the exact words are there. Objective. Knowable. Unalterable. Black and white. But as we look at 2000 years and 50000 denominations, what EXACTLY is THE Tradition on the Papacy? Even if we just limit that to 3 denominations: the OO, EO and RC and just what those 3 regard as infallible Apostolic Tradition - we don't seem to know what it is (each set of bishops has a different corpus of infallible, Apostolic Tradition - different snippets). And while all 50000 denomiantions (well, most of them, lol) would agree that Romans 3:28 is in the infallible, inscripturated words of God (and thus fully reliable), even the OO, EO and RC don't agree on the "status" of this "Tradition" each embraces very differently (even from year to year). Is everything Origin wrote Tradition? Just some? Which some? Is it divine revelation like Romans 3:28 or.....? Is it equal to Romans 3:28 or.......? Seems REALLY slippery to me. But add to those 3 the 49,997 others - all embracing Tradition (as each sees it, but none can produce any objective, knowable "corpus") and.... Don't get me wrong, I think SOME tradition is knowable (the Apostles and Nicene Creeds - even if the exact wording is a tad slippery), much from the 7 Ecumenical Councils is pretty objectively knowable. But as I look at what divides the RCC and Lutheranism - very little of that helps. And ALL that divides the RC and EO (including SEVERAL de fide DOGMAS - issues of highest importance) isn't helped at all by that. Those things - together - are but a tiny, tiny, subset of "Tradition" as claimed by the 50000 denominations today. It's a very slippery concept. That, in and of itself, makes it an inferior rule, IMO. When my ubercalvinist friend and I open our Bibles - we have the exact same letters in the exact same order from Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21 (moot varient readings aside). Objective. Knowable. We know what the rule is. We can read it with our eyes. You can too. Yes - we MAY interpret such differently but we start at the same point. With Tradition, everyone starts every day at a different and completely unknown and unknowable point. We all AGREE on what Jesus said (read the red font in the first 4 books of the NT), there's NO agreement on what He MIGHT have said but we have no record of it (inspired by God or otherwise).





.

 

[ivebeenshown]

This thread is not about hermeneutics (interpretation of the words in Scripture) it's about norming (evaluating the correctness/validity/truthfulness of doctrines).

You cannot evaluate the validity of a doctrine using Scripture as a rule without using hermeneutics.

Um.... But YOU said Scripture is meaningless without some sort of tradition.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7546106/#post57045825

It seems to me that you're contradicting yourself here. Would you please clarify yourself here?

Saying 'scripture is meaningless without some sort of tradition' is not equivalent to saying 'scripture is unimportant.'

Another way to put it: I can say 'Jesus is meaningless without the Holy Spirit' (which is entirely true,) without having said 'Jesus is unimportant.'

 

[sunlover1]

Either way, Scripture isnt meaningless in any circumstance.
And there is no need for any sort of "tradition".
I handed a Bible to someone from another country in their
own language and it was very "meaningful" to him.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Very well. Let's take a look at the council then, shall we? Here is a link to Acts 15. I won't quote it all here, because it is long, but I will refer to portions of it.

Acts 15 NIV

First, we have in verse 5, a pharisee convert who claims that all gentile converts must be circumcised. That is certainly an interesting idea, I wonder where he came up with it? Well, from scripture, of course, as seen here:

9Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”

In fact, if you go through the entire OT, you will find that circumcision is indeed binding for all jews, who were considered the people of God. There is no verses that would lead anyone to think otherwise. Therefore, by using sola scriptura (as the pharisee did here) one would logically be led to believe that gentile converts must (and should) be circumcised. Why shouldn't it say that? The OT said nothing about Christian converts. There simply was no 'standard' or 'precedent' for them to abide by. So therefore, the pharisee was justified, at least in the eyes of sola scriptura, to demand that the gentiles be circumcised.

Wait though, didn't James use scripture as well? Why yes he did, as we see here:

16“‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17that the remnant of men may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’b
18that have been known for ages.c

However, this verse says nothing about gentile converts to Christianity, nor does it say whether they should obey the Laws of Moses or the covenant of old. James was simply asserting here by using scriptural support, that gentiles are now to be welcomed to be people of God as well as jews. (Using scriptural support is nothing new in councils, all decisions use scripture to support their decisions, however the key difference is that they do not use ONLY scripture). Notice also that Paul believed that converts do not need to be circumcised, while James originally believed they should be. If scripture was their only source for formulating doctrine here, then why didn't they agree with each other? Clearly because there was no biblical precedent for such a case.

So here we have the decision of James:

19“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead 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. 21For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

Interesting decision. He decides (no doubt after consulting with the others) that the gentiles should obey some of the laws of moses, which does not include circumcision. Was this decision made relying entirely upon scripture? Of course not! I challenge you to find anywhere in the OT where such a rule for converts, or anything remotely like it, is laid out. It is simply 'not written'. Again, if they were to follow scripture alone, they would no doubt conclude that the converts should obey the laws and be circumcised, as the pharisee stated, because that was the rule for the jews, who were God's people. As you can see, the verse that James quotes says nothing about this decision or the details which are contained within. All it suggests is that God will come for the gentiles as well. He used scripture to support his decision, but in no way did he use scripture alone while formulating it (again, how could he when there is no such precent established?) To say otherwise is simply ignoring the obvious.

Make no mistake, this was indeed real church doctrine which was established here; this was a big deal. This decision was binding on all local congregations. So what are we to conclude then if scripture alone didn't guide their decision on the formulation of doctrine? Well, simply that the church was guided by the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not limited to acting through scripture alone in such matters. To attempt to confine the action of the Holy Spirit is indeed a grave error. We must have faith that the Spirit guided the church leaders faithfully and in the appropriate direction to which he saw fit, the same assumption that we should (and do) make regarding the later universal councils. To assume otherwise is to lose faith that the Holy Spirit is alive, present, and active in the church. It is the holy spirit which ultimately acts, whether he chooses scripture or other means to convey his truths.

1. Views were regarded as ACCOUNTABLE (in direct contrast to the RCC position where what the RCC teaches is unaccountable but all OTHER teach is accountable).


2. All positions are heard. Yes, Peter is ONE of the speakers. Not the first, not the last. NOTHING about any keys or vicar of Jesus or infallible Pope or "when I speak Jesus speaks."


3. After hearing all sides equally (all accountable), arbitration happens. We aren't told anything about the decision process beyond that it is by "the Apostles AND ELDERS." Later it says, "The Apostles and Elders WITH THE WHOLE CHURCH." Nothing about such being limited to EO or RC Bishops. It would have been helpful, perhaps, if the deliberative discussion had been recorded, but it was not.


4. The decision is announced by James (probably not an Apostle or bishop of the RC denomination; he likely was an Elder - the pastor of the church in Jerusalem). NOT Peter. Not any successor of Peter.


5. Elder James specifically states the rule, he says, "THE WORDS OF SCRIPTURE AGREE WITH THIS....." Do you know what it is called when a position is ruled by Scripture? Yup, it's called "The Rule of Scripture" (or Sola Scriptura as Luther and Calvin called it).


6. Elder James gives this Rule of Scripture even more emphasis by quoting some Scriptures. And then by writing, "....THEREFORE" as he begins to give the decision. The "therefore" goes back to "the words of SCRIPTURE" agree with this. Enormous emphasis on SCRIPTURE as the rule/canon/norma normans.


7. Notice that Elder James notes no other rule. At all. Under or with or otherwise. None. NO MENTION AT ALL of RC Tradition or EO Tradition or LDS Tradition. NO MENTION at all of Peter as being the infallible pope or having any keys or being exempt from accountability. "The words of SCRIPTURE agree with this..." SCRIPTURE is quoted. The decision hinges on the "...THEREFORE."


8. Note, when the letter is sent (verse 23), its from the "Apostles AND ELDERS and the WHOLE CHURCH" not "Catholic Bishops" or "The RCC denomination" or "Peter - the Vicar of Christ." This is something the whole church worked out. In the letter, several men are mention - Peter is not even mentioned, not once.



Two other very minor things I'd want to add, not with much emphasis. Elder James announces the decision of the First Ecumenical Council NOT with "Therefore, GOD says...." but "Therefore (by the Rule of Scripture), it is my judgment." Rather than the RC's view that these decisions are divine revelation equal to Scripture, I think Elder James is ONLY saying this is a sound decision, given credence by its being normed by Scripture, and it should settle the issue. It's resolution, not revelation, it seems to ME. While Scripture is seen as infallible and divine, there's no such implication for this decision.

Another point: It SEEMS there is a need for the church (all Christians) to affirm this. While the letter is pointed, it doesn't seem to convey the whole POWER, LORDING IT OVER OTHERS issue I learned in Catholicism. It is convincing, not lording. SEVERAL brothers (and Paul and Barnabus - not Peter; Barnabus wasn't even one of the 13) are sent with the letter - it seems to convince them; this is evangelical and wise counsel from the elders, not a BIG STICK that terminates the issue of truth.

I really don't want to "get off" on those two minor issues. But it is very obvious that ONE norma normans was used at this Council - and it could not be more clearly stated. It's the Rule of Scripture (aka Sola Scriptura). Sure, there's "other stuff" here but the Rule here is obvious and clear. THAT'S the point (for this thread).





Thank you.


- Josiah






.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Back to Arius for a moment.

We can trace his tradition back 2 stages to Paul of Samosata (sic?). From where did Paul S get his ideas? Not sure at this point.

Later with Arius, in addition to tradition, he tried to also use scripture. Basically, this is how groups like RC and EO try to support their doctrines and practices.

So, two things.

One, if we trace Arius' teaching backward, at this point we know we end up with a priest, not an apostle.

Two, the fact that Arius later tried to bolster his position with scripture, simply strengthens scripture's claim to be the rule of faith and practice. IOW, without scripture, Arius wouldn't even get a hearing. Again, this is why EO and RC so intently at least try to 'connect' their doctrines/beliefs also. (Not making a comment on the veracity of their doctrines/beliefs, just their rule (tradition and scripture, rather than scripture and apostle-tied tradition)).

Hope that helps.

Forgive me, but why all this talk about Arius? It is rather inconvenient to have to look up sources, etc. from 2000 years ago when we have modern day non-trinitarians among us today to use for examples! (In fact, if you go over to the un-orthodox theology section, i'm sure you will be able to find many of them, and perhaps some on here as well.)

Ok, so let's take a scenario then. Let's say we put you in a room with a Oneness Pentecostal (who denies the Trinity) and we give you each a bible. Let's say that all the silly traditions, like the councils, etc. never existed, and we don't have any writings of the church fathers to worry about (i'm sure some of you are fantasizing right now). Both of you are to use only scripture alone to defend your points. You defend the Trinity, and the pentecostal defends the non-trinity.

After some time has elapsed, you both gather your verses which support your side. You may pull verses up like John 10:30:

"I and the father are one."

And the pentecostal may pull up verses like John 14:28:

If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.

You both have your verses which 'seemingly' support your side, and both of you are insistent upon your view. So who wins? Neither of you have authority over another, both of you insist that the only authority in the room is scripture. Both of you insist that the Holy Spirit taught you the correct doctrine from scripture. How would you convince him without recourse to tradition, injecting your own tradition (i.e. personal interpretation) or deferring to some type of outside authority (e.g. the Church)?

This is a practical, real world example of why sola scriptura simply fails to establish doctrine with any consistent or persuasive ability. There must be (and in fact always is) other factors at play which ultimately win out, and it usually comes down to the person's ability to persuade another with their own interpretation of scripture (the fallible interpretation of man, mind you). Arguments about doctrine which use only sola scriptura will always result in a stalemate with both sides ardently defending their opposing viewpoints from scripture, simply because you are pitting the ultimate authority against the ultimate authority; i.e. an unstoppable force against an immovable object. Surely this strange paradox isn't the plan that God had in mind to leave us with??

 

[Philothei]

Tradtion predates the NT though... It starts with the OT. It is handed down and it a method of expressing the Kerygma of God through Christ and His Apostles. The Evangelion (good news/ proclamation) has to to with the whole record of this porclamation writen AFTER it was oral...thus the word "aggelos" meaning message. Proclamnations were deliverred some orally and some written like the Angel Gabriel telling Theotokos the "good news". He did not give her a "letter" he announced it to her orally. Thus the word is definately much more than what it is written. Thus the Biblical Kerygma is just a bit of what Christ did .St. Athanasios says that in his wrtings on the incarnation while he talks about the Bible... *after all he is the number one Father instrumental on the implementation of the canon* that not ALL that Christ did and said is in the Bible. I think that he was thinking that some will take this canon to be the ONLY source of God's revelation; and that is not the case IMHO at all.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Either way, Scripture isnt meaningless in any circumstance.
And there is no need for any sort of "tradition".
I handed a Bible to someone from another country in their
own language and it was very "meaningful" to him.

... and you COULD literally hand them Scripture. And (with moot and minor difference in 4 denominations: the OO, EO, RC and LDS) it would be the identical Sciptures.

Could anyone 'hand' your friend "Christian Tradition?" It's a very, very slippery thing, variously understood even in the same denomination. There is no objective, knowable corpus of such - never has been.

Is Tradition moot? Not in my opinion. Is it the most sound norma normans for the evaluating of the disputed doctrines and traditions among us? No, IMO.





.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

1. Views were regarded as ACCOUNTABLE (in direct contrast to the RCC position where what the RCC teaches is unaccountable but all OTHER teach is accountable).


2. All positions are heard. Yes, Peter is ONE of the speakers. Not the first, not the last. NOTHING about any keys or vicar of Jesus or infallible Pope or "when I speak Jesus speaks."


3. After hearing all sides equally (all accountable), arbitration happens. We aren't told anything about the decision process beyond that it is by "the Apostles AND ELDERS." Later it says, "The Apostles and Elders WITH THE WHOLE CHURCH." Nothing about such being limited to EO or RC Bishops. It would have been helpful, perhaps, if the deliberative discussion had been recorded, but it was not.


4. The decision is announced by James (probably not an Apostle or bishop of the RC denomination; he likely was an Elder - the pastor of the church in Jerusalem). NOT Peter. Not any successor of Peter.


5. Elder James specifically states the rule, he says, "THE WORDS OF SCRIPTURE AGREE WITH THIS....." Do you know what it is called when a position is ruled by Scripture? Yup, it's called "The Rule of Scripture" (or Sola Scriptura as Luther and Calvin called it).


6. Elder James gives this Rule of Scripture even more emphasis by quoting some Scriptures. And then by writing, "....THEREFORE" as he begins to give the decision. The "therefore" goes back to "the words of SCRIPTURE" agree with this. Enormous emphasis on SCRIPTURE as the rule/canon/norma normans.


7. Notice that Elder James notes no other rule. At all. Under or with or otherwise. None. NO MENTION AT ALL of RC Tradition or EO Tradition or LDS Tradition. NO MENTION at all of Peter as being the infallible pope or having any keys or being exempt from accountability. "The words of SCRIPTURE agree with this..." SCRIPTURE is quoted. The decision hinges on the "...THEREFORE."


8. Note, when the letter is sent (verse 23), its from the "Apostles AND ELDERS and the WHOLE CHURCH" not "Catholic Bishops" or "The RCC denomination" or "Peter - the Vicar of Christ." This is something the whole church worked out. In the letter, several men are mention - Peter is not even mentioned, not once.



Two other very minor things I'd want to add, not with much emphasis. Elder James announces the decision of the First Ecumenical Council NOT with "Therefore, GOD says...." but "Therefore (by the Rule of Scripture), it is my judgment." Rather than the RC's view that these decisions are divine revelation equal to Scripture, I think Elder James is ONLY saying this is a sound decision, given credence by its being normed by Scripture, and it should settle the issue. It's resolution, not revelation, it seems to ME. While Scripture is seen as infallible and divine, there's no such implication for this decision.

Another point: It SEEMS there is a need for the church (all Christians) to affirm this. While the letter is pointed, it doesn't seem to convey the whole POWER, LORDING IT OVER OTHERS issue I learned in Catholicism. It is convincing, not lording. SEVERAL brothers (and Paul and Barnabus - not Peter; Barnabus wasn't even one of the 13) are sent with the letter - it seems to convince them; this is evangelical and wise counsel from the elders, not a BIG STICK that terminates the issue of truth.

I really don't want to "get off" on those two minor issues. But it is very obvious that ONE norma normans was used at this Council - and it could not be more clearly stated. It's the Rule of Scripture (aka Sola Scriptura). Sure, there's "other stuff" here but the Rule here is obvious and clear. THAT'S the point (for this thread).





Thank you.


- Josiah






.

I'm sorry, but the Holy Spirit is the only "norma normans" that was present at this council:

"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..."

btw, i'm not sure what all this reference to Peter and the RCC is about, I didn't even mention that...

 

[Ortho_Cat]

You cannot evaluate the validity of a doctrine using Scripture as a rule without using hermeneutics.

Which is the point of this thread.

 

[laconicstudent]

btw, i'm not sure what all this reference to Peter and the RCC is about, I didn't even mention that...

He seems to think Eastern Orthodox are just Greek/Russian Roman Catholics.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Ok, so let's take a scenario then. Let's say we put you in a room with a Oneness Pentecostal (who denies the Trinity) and we give you each a bible. Let's say that all the silly traditions, like the councils, etc. never existed, and we don't have any writings of the church fathers to worry about (i'm sure some of you are fantasizing right now). Both of you are to use only scripture alone to defend your points. You defend the Trinity, and the pentecostal defends the non-trinity.

I think everyone is pretty frustrated here....

You have been informed - many times now - that Sola Scriptura is not a process of arbitration, it is the embracing of Scripture as the Rule. You constantly keep changing the topic - insisting on applying Sola Scriptura to a whole other issue.

AGAIN, yes - to resolve the issue (in any sense), there needs to be arbitration. This everyone has admitted to you, many times. As has been noted repeatedly, Sola Scriptura is not an arbitive process, it is the embrace of Scripture as the Rule for such. Let me try it again, let me use this: You are driving down the road at 60 MPH. The speed limit sign says "MAX 35 MPH." Got it? Now, does the sign determine if you are speeding or not? Of course not! Whether you are speeding will need to be determined ON THE BASIS OF THE RULE OF LAW. Arbitration is the process of determining if the issue "measures up" (arbitration) to the "measuring stick" (canon/rule/norma normans). The measuring stick determines nothing, but it is the rule for that determination. If the policeman stops you, under the RULE OF LAW, he will not quote from from a Justin Bieber song, he will not point to how his wife feels about his BBQ chicken, he will not reference how fast the Ford pickup was driving on this road 6 months ago, he would not point to his own feeling about what is fast and slow, he will not direct you to the very big gun he as on his hip or even to his office as a policeman - none of those would be the rule, the standard, the plumbline. He'd point to the sign. The WRITTEN, objective, knowable, unalterable, big square sign with big black numerals and letters: "MAX SPEED 35 MPH." If there is a dispute if 60 is faster than 35, then it goes to arbitration, doesn't it - you will have you day in court. But what will be the rule in that court? The Rule of Law, not the Rule of the Ford Pickup or The Cops Big Gun or Justin Bieber.

After some time has elapsed, you both gather your verses which support your side. You may pull verses up like John 10:30

Again, as has been pointed out many times, referencing Scripture MAY (may) be the employment of Sola Scriptura but it is not arbitration. Satan quoted Scripture. He was wrong. You may quote the speed limit sign on the Interstate of 75 MPH to justify you going 60, but your reference to that would be wrong to the position here. BUT, so would you claiming the temperatue at which you cooked your oatmeal cookies: 350. We need the SAME rule and it needs to be knowable, objective, above all parties, beyond all parties (including the cop - no matter how big his gun or what his title is).

You both have your verses which 'seemingly' support your side, and both of you are insistent upon your view. So who wins?

AUTOMATICALLY, neither. But at least we now have a basis for some resolution, we have a common, objective, knowable rule above and beyond all parties - one embrace by all parties as reliable and authoritative to the issue.

I find that better than Frank looking to the Cop's Big Gun, Sandy looking to the Justin Bieber song, Bob just looking at this own feelings bout the whole thing, and Tom trying to figure out how fast that Ford was driving (or was it a Chevy as Dave is now arguing).

Neither of you have authority over another, both of you insist that the only authority in the room is scripture.

You seem to be defining "authority" as a POWER word, LORDING it over others. I honestly thought that was a Catholic obsession, not an EO one...

The issue here is having a common rule/canon/norma normans. Yes, it may need to be arbitrated - and yes, it's going to be most helpful if such resolves the issue. But that has to do with respect for the arbitration, not some one insisting that self has a Very Big Gun and the POWER to make you sorry if you don't obey. Rome fell a long time ago, I think you need to get out of the Roman POWER mindset.

This is a practical, real world example of why sola scriptura simply fails to establish doctrine with any consistent or persuasive ability.

Look at the RCC and LDS. Both insisting that self alone is unaccountable and both looking to Tradition. Do they resolve anything thusly?

And how are you doing with the RCC on the basis of the SAME "infallible" "Apostolic" "Tradition?" The RCC insists that the Infallible Pope, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Original Sin, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of Mary are taught boldly and clearly and definitively in TRADITION right from the 13 Apostles - every Catholic Bishop on the planet is totally sure of that, it's all right "there." Why doesn't that resolve a THING with the EO? Because who knows that Jesus and the Apostles taught but no one recorded, what IS this "Tradition?" HOW CAN it be a rule when no one knows what it is, where it is, what it says? It "is" what each thinks it "is."

There must be (and in fact always is) other factors at play which ultimately win out

I suspect you're right. But I wouldn't suggest you ergo reject the Rule of Law as you drive down the road thinking to yourself: "I'd rather drive on the left hand side of the double line - or better yet, ignore the yellow line entirely." If another thinks like you - you both may be sorry. You may need to embrace some knowable, objective rule OUTSIDE and BEYOND you both - which both of you embrace.






.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I'm sorry, but the Holy Spirit is the only "norma normans" that was present at this council:

"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..."

Then why didn't Elder James say, "The view is in agreement with the Holy Spirit" in stead of "In agreement with the Scriptures?" Why didn't he quote the Holy Spirit instead of Scripture?




.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Then why didn't Elder James say, "The view is in agreement with the Holy Spirit" in stead of "In agreement with the Scriptures?" Why didn't he quote the Holy Spirit instead of Scripture?




.

Eh? He said both...and I believe that his decision is based on revelation by the HS, as I hope everyone would believe also.


28It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

These requirements were given to him from the Holy Spirit, not from Scripture.