Circumcision, Act 15, and Sola Scriptura

[thessalonian]

It seems to me that Sola Scripturists equate GOSPEL = SCRIPTURE and WordOfGod = SCRIPTURE. Now don't get me wrong, I do think the Gospel is contained in the scriptures and the scriptures are the WOG but do they contain the whole WOG and is the Gospel completely, explicitly contained in them? I got to thinking this morning about the Galatians. Paul was rather stern with them regarding circumcision. I think Jude even says they must be silenced. Now we have two verses thrown our way that are said to "prove" Sola Scriptura. One of course is 2 Tim 3:16. You know the verse. The other is about the Bereans searching the scriptures daily in acts 17. These were Jews and the scriptures they searched were most certainly not Matt, Mark, and Luke. Now in Acts 15 the council of Jerusalem decides that circumcision is out. Gentiles don't have to be circumcised. However a letter was sent out that does not even mention circumcision.

Acts 15:23-28
and they sent this letter by them, "The apostles and the brethren who are elders, to the brethren in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia who are from the Gentiles, greetings.
"Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you with their words, unsettling your souls,
it seemed good to us, having become of one mind, to select men to send to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
"Therefore we have sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will also report the same things by WORD OF MOUTH.
"For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials:
that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell."

Keep in mind that we do not have the original letter so therefore it was not scripture until it was captured as such by Luke in the verse above.
Now to the Judaziers of Galatians circumcision was a part of the Gospel because it was commanded in the Old Testament. It is lucky for the Bereans that Paul did not mention that circumcision was not a part of the Gospel because they would have had to reject him. He even says in Galatians that if any man preaches another Gospel to you let him be accursed. Yet nowhere in the scriptures they would have used does it say there is no need for circumcision. Now if Gospel = Scripture, then by the Berean principle Paul's preaching against circumcision fails. It seems as though at best the issue of circumcision in this early Church would have had to have been a matter of "in-house debate" by the Sola Scriptura, Rodney King can't we all just get along theorem. But the Judaziers see it as Gospel. Note I capitalized WORD OF MOUTH above however. Evidently that had a considerable amount of weight with regard to the early Christians and it was expected that those words delivered orally about circumsion be obeyed. This is not Sola Scriptura in action at all. There were plenty of verses the Judaziers could have used from the OT to refute what Silas and Judas brought by WORD OF MOUTH. The very verses that Paul supposedly told Timothy he was supposed to test everything with. Yet, their words trumped all of this. Sola Scriptura failed in the early Church and it fails today. Comments?

Blessings

[thessalonian]

bump

[Homestarlover85]

bump

[Buzzard]

[quote]~{Acts 15:13}~
13   And after they had held their peace,
{[i]or quit their squabbling[/i]}

[b][color=green]James answered[/color][/b], saying,
Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14   Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles,
to take out of them a people for his name.

15   [b][color=red]And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written[/color][/b],
16   After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David,
which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof,
and I will set it up:
17   That the residue of men might seek after the Lord,
and all the Gentiles,  upon whom my name is called,
saith the Lord,  who doeth all these things.
18   Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

[b][color=green]James Speaking[/color][/b],
19 Wherefore [b][color=red]my[/color][/b] sentence is,
................................. "[/quote]

Edited October 29, 2004 by Buzzard

[thessalonian]

Buzzard,

Perhaps you could expound on your point a bit. We know that things were written and we are to be in union with that which is WRITTEN. How does this however fit in with Sola Scriptura when contrary to what the Bible had taught up to this point about circumcision the council sent out men telling people by WORD OF MOUTH that circumcision was no longer neccessary? What would the Bereans have done had they heard this? Rejected Paul? (personally I don't think so). Remember that you cannot use the NT scriptures in your answer because they were not WRITTEN and most definitely would not have been considered by the Berean JEWS even if they had been.

Blessings

[thessalonian]

I thought this was a debate forum. Where are the debators on this one?

Anyone? Anyone?

[Brother Adam]

Briguy usually isn't here on the weekends. Or maybe you just scared him away

[Benedict]

The above is Buzzard's C&P (copy & paste) response to two things - Tradition and the Papacy.

He highlights the first line to show that there was no appeal to Tradition; it was written.

He highlights the second line to show the primacy of James above Peter.

I am not sure if I have ever seen Buzzard post without using his C&Ps.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Benedict' date='Oct 30 2004, 11:23 AM'] The above is Buzzard's C&P (copy & paste) response to two things - Tradition and the Papacy.

He highlights the first line to show that there was no appeal to Tradition; it was written.

He highlights the second line to show the primacy of James above Peter.

I am not sure if I have ever seen Buzzard post without using his C&Ps. [/quote]
"The above is Buzzard's C&P (copy & paste) response to two things - Tradition and the Papacy.

He highlights the first line to show that there was no appeal to Tradition; it was written.

He highlights the second line to show the primacy of James above Peter.

I am not sure if I have ever seen Buzzard post without using his C&Ps. "

I gathered the first half out of his post. How does that discount tradition however. We know things were written and quoted. So what. Where on earth in the Old Testament does it say that circumcision is not neccessary. Where on earth are the other things that the messangers supposed to deliver "BY WORD OF MOUTH" written such that they would not have to deliver them "BY WORD OF MOUTH".

As for your second part of the question, how on earth does James saying something prove he has primacy over Peter. The council was called about circumcision upon which Peter settles the question. James speaks about meat sacrificed to Idols. If you are agreeing with Buzzard your going to half to try to do a better job of defending your position.

So once again Benedict and Buzzard, put your self in Galatia and Paul rolls in to town after the council and tells you there is no need for cicumcision any more. They say, well that's all well and good. Show it in scripture. He says well I am an apostle. I don't have to follow scirpture They say, well you told us if you or another angel of light preaches something contrary to the Gospel then we should reject you.

Paul,
Well, um, um, somebody get me a piece of paper and a pencil so I can write down that your not supposed to require circumcision any more.

It's getting rather silly now isn't it.

Blessings

Blessings

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Oct 30 2004, 09:55 AM'] Briguy usually isn't here on the weekends. Or maybe you just scared him away [/quote]
Yes I know but I asked his input several days ago.

[God Conquers]

That's a great point thessalonian.

I mean, it's pretty clear that communities in the first several hundred years had very little to go on other than Tradition. If the written scriptures were what was necessary for salvation (at least to follow and know your faith) then either a ridiculous number of those ancient copies have been lost (more than normal for such a time period) OR there are thousands of the earliest christians in hell, because they had no scripture to guide them.

[Buzzard]

[quote name='Benedict' date='Oct 30 2004, 11:23 AM'] The above is Buzzard's C&P (copy & paste)


I am not sure if I have ever seen Buzzard post without using his C&Ps. [/quote]
Thats the way most quote scripture on these boards
copy from an online bible or from your own CD then paste it into the reply box

Edited October 31, 2004 by Buzzard

[Buzzard]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Oct 30 2004, 01:59 PM']
I gathered the first half out of his post. How does that discount tradition however. We know things were written and quoted. So what. [color=red]Where on earth in the Old Testament does it say that circumcision is not neccessary[/color]. Where on earth are the other things that the messangers supposed to deliver "BY WORD OF MOUTH" written such that they would not have to deliver them "BY WORD OF MOUTH".

[/quote]
[quote]~{Gen 17:7}~
7 And I will establish My covenant between Me and thee and thy seed after thee
throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant,
to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee.


10 This is My covenant, which ye shall keep,
between Me and you and thy seed after thee:
every male among you shall be circumcised.
11 And ye shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin;
and it shall be a token of a covenant betwixt Me and you.
12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you,
every male throughout your generations,
#1:
he that is born in the house,
#2:
or bought with money of any foreigner,
that is not of thy seed.

#1:
13 He that is born in thy house,

#2:
and he that is bought with thy money,
must needs be circumcised;
and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 
14 And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people;
he hath broken My covenant.'[/quote]
[color=blue]Were the "Gentile Converts"[/color] [list]#1:
born in the house,
#2:
or bought with money of any foreigner,
that is not of thy seed.

#1:
13 He that is born in thy house,

#2:
and he that is bought with thy money,
[/list]#2:
[color=blue]Were they joining or converting to the Judism[/color] ????

No; they were not, so Circumsision was not necessary

[Brother Adam]

You have an odd sense of covenantal theology. What you are saying doesn't jive with scripture at all. And I am trying to follow your line of thought. Circumcision was required to enter into this old covenant. Covenant theology, unlike evangelical theology is not about making contracts, its about becoming family. When you make a contract, you have two parties agreeing to a specific list of obligations. When you make a covenant it changes the essence of who the people are. When you sign a lease on an apartment you don't change your family tree. When you make a covenant promise with God, you do. Circumcision was the rite of passage into the covenant family with the house of Isreal.

[Buzzard]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Oct 27 2004, 08:31 AM'] It seems to me that Sola Scripturists equate GOSPEL = SCRIPTURE and WordOfGod = SCRIPTURE. Now don't get me wrong, I do think the Gospel is contained in the scriptures and the scriptures are the WOG but do they contain the whole WOG and is the Gospel completely, explicitly contained in them? I got to thinking this morning about the Galatians. Paul was rather stern with them regarding circumcision. I think Jude even says they must be silenced. Now we have two verses thrown our way that are said to "prove" Sola Scriptura. One of course is 2 Tim 3:16. You know the verse. The other is about the Bereans searching the scriptures daily in acts 17. These were Jews and the scriptures they searched were most certainly not Matt, Mark, and Luke. Now in Acts 15 the council of Jerusalem decides that circumcision is out. Gentiles don't have to be circumcised. However a letter was sent out that does not even mention circumcision.

[/quote]
1st;
you guys need to learn the differance between[list]Sola-Scriptura
[*]and
Solo-Scriptura
[/list]