Ernie wrote:lesterb wrote:Heirbyadoption wrote:
The general agreement I've heard so far is that, at the least, the Apostles had the authority to set forth such decrees. I'm not disputing that. But frankly, these guys either wrote the New Testament or their teachings were recorded in it. I wouldn't consider those "extra-Biblical - they're in the Bible itself...
My question is more or less whether that authority displayed at the Jerusalem council continued in force to congregations to create and enforce regulations beyond what is recorded in the Scriptures, and if so, where that ongoing right or authority is given, or derived from. Does that make sense? Does Acts 15 actually give churches the right to create and enforce extra-Biblical regulations, in your understandings?
It's an illustration of the church doing that, I think. It was extra-biblical at that point, though not any longer, since Acts records it.
Exactly. At the time the New Testament was being written, everything the Apostles were saying was extra Biblical. At what exact point in history did Peter's instructions about jewelry and clothing become authoritative for all people and all times? At what point could members of the church say, "All instructions from these certain men are good for all people at all times because they wrote about these things in their letters, but anything they said outside of that context, has no universal authority."
This whole extra-biblical discussion is a rather modern thing.
lesterb wrote:
Jesus, in Matthew 18, talked about the church binding and loosing. That could include this. Ernie has already mentioned Peter. The Bible mentions many things as principles that need to be applied or interpreted somehow. For instance, it talks about modest apparel. It talks about costly array. It tells us to come out from among them and be separate and touch not the unclean thing. All of these require human decision of some sort. The NT is a timeless book, designed to be applicable in all ages. What does it mean to avoid all appearance of evil? That will change from century to century. My wife is a modestly dressed woman, but she would have been arrested for immodesty in some times and places in history.
I think that this idea of not needing to do or not do anything except what is explicitly mentioned in the NT is a mirage. The point most often is that we don't want a person, or a congregation, or a fellowship telling us what to do or not do. We want to be the master of our destiny, not the church.
I appreciate all the replies. Lester, per your last statement first, though - that honestly strikes me as simply dismissive (not personally, but possibly of an avenue you don't feel worth pursuing). Just my impression though, and I probably misread it.
At the time the New Testament was being written, everything the Apostles were saying was extra Biblical.
In a technical sense, this is true, and yet are we straining to defend the authority of congregations to create and enforce any practices they (or some of them) feel to try to squeeze into their box of practices in the name of Biblical principles? Again, if we truly take the church of Acts as our example, and we believe there was any kind of authority or power limited to the apostles, then at their closure (and therefore of the canon) is the only place we can begin to truly talk about extraBiblical. Everything until or up to that point would be Biblical, just as it was recorded.
This idea of not needing to do or not do anything except what is explicitly mentioned in the NT is a mirage. The point most often is that we don't want a person, or a congregation, or a fellowship telling us what to do or not do. We want to be the master of our destiny, not the church.
I don't know about "most often", but your statement is certainly not always true, hence my original question. Yes, we battle postmodernism and scriptural minimization all around us, and yes, many times people just want free rein to never submit to anyone, but it's also a fact that we have a generation of Anabaptist young people sincerely desiring more than the denominational squabbles, blind adherence, and dry rigidity they witness in many (certainly not all) of their parents and grandparents generations, and they've also been raised to consider the Word as their ultimate foundation (now that'll get you in trouble...). It's inevitable that they should ask if the vast body of extraBiblical church practices and applications bear any responsibility for the struggles they have seen among the previous generation(s), or if the church has full reign to create and enforce and they just need to be more submissive.
Finally, while I'm thinking out loud:
The Bible mentions many things as principles that need to be applied or interpreted somehow. For instance, it talks about modest apparel. It talks about costly array. It tells us to come out from among them and be separate and touch not the unclean thing. All of these require human decision of some sort.
And yet, are you sure that the context of binding and loosing is a blank check for a congregation to create a list of practices and applications, rather than teaching the principles that the Scripture teaches?