I noticed that in this thread you have again mentioned the events described in Acts 15 as an example of “the Church” revealing something not already revealed in Scripture. I tried (obviously unsuccessfully) to point out to you that Peter’s statements regarding circumcision were by no means a new revelation. The Apostles had been spreading the Gospel years before the events recorded in Acts 15. It is a matter of fact that Paul was in Jerusalem to correct the false teachings of “a sect of the Pharisees” from Jerusalem who refused to believe that Jesus Christ represented the new covenant (or law). He describes the nature of his visit in his letter to the Galatians. There is absolutely NO doubt that he understood the old law (including circumcision) no longer bound Christians. Read Galatians 2:4-10 and you will see that there is nothing Peter said in Jerusalem that in any way changed what Paul was already teaching to the growing Christian Church in the decade previous.
You go on to reference Acts 15:6 to show there was “much debate” (also translated as “questioning” or “discussion”). But among the Apostles, there was none, and first Peter and then James confirmed Paul’s message and explained the “correct” answer to the assembled elders. Peter references the Divine revelation described in Acts 10 (the conversion of Cornelius), and James then quotes Amos 9:11-12, to prove that what Peter experienced agreed with the words of the prophets (Scripture). To claim that Peter was somehow revealing a truth that was previously unknown is to deny the previous work of Paul (and Peter) among the Gentiles, the revelation from God to Peter concerning the cleansing of the Gentiles in Acts 10, and the words of the prophets recorded in Amos. It also ignores the entire Gospel of Christ being the “New Covenant” which was already being taught to the growing church in both the East and West. Finally, the fact that ALL these events are actually recorded in what we all agree is God breathed Scripture makes them an invalid proof that tradition is required to understand the Word or Will of God. It was understood even at that time, that the writings of the Apostles were considered inspired and Scriptural. In 2 Peter 3:15-16 Peter describes ALL of Paul’s epistles as Scripture. These men are the authors of Scripture. Not later day interpreters. I think it would be more useful to your argument to reference an Apostolic tradition that cannot be found in the written Word.
First, hello again. I appreciate your comments regarding the tone of our postings. It is unfortunate that our previous threads ended when they did, as a lot of work went into them, and somehow, I feel we didn't conclude them. I suppose we have to agree to disagree.
Now to your comments (which I appreciate).
"I tried (obviously unsuccessfully) to point out to you that Peter’s statements regarding circumcision were by no means a new revelation. The Apostles had been spreading the Gospel years before the events recorded in Acts 15."
This is one of the subjects that was an offshoot on our previous discussion that we never concluded. And while I agree that Peter was not given new revelation, it was apparent that there was NOT total agreement as you imply regarding this question. First of all, you omit the verse where Peter in Acts 10 says "I never ate profane meat". He STILL was practicing the customs of Judaism in this case. Secondly, Paul confronts him later on this. Whether this happened before or after Acts 15, I don't know. In that vein, much of the writings of the Pauline Corpus were written AFTER Acts 15, so you are chronologically incorrect to point to these latter writings to prove the teachings of the Apostles BEFORE Acts 15.
While we know what Jesus taught the Apostles regarding the eating of unclean meat, it was apparent in their actions that they were not yet taking this teaching seriously. The fact that there was a Jewish-Christian faction oppposing this idea of Paul and Barnabas proves this. And Peter himself, probably James and the others, were also remaining within this old custom. The necessity of God sending a dream to Peter was the breakout message to the early Church, don't you think?
"But among the Apostles, there was none, and first Peter and then James confirmed Paul’s message and explained the “correct” answer to the assembled elders."
This came only after the dream of Peter and he explained his baptism of Cornelius. It is obvious that the Apostles were not teaching this before Cornelius was baptized.
"Finally, the fact that ALL these events are actually recorded in what we all agree is God breathed Scripture makes them an invalid proof that tradition is required to understand the Word or Will of God."
You are forgetting that there was no "Word of God" written yet on the subject at hand!!! This was all done before the NT was written. What Scripture did the Apostles use to base their argument that non-kosher meat was OK? What Scripture basis did Peter use to say that circumcision was no longer required? "It seemed good to the us and the Holy Spirit" - that was their basis. And that is the basis that the Church continues to use when defining what the Church is to believe, teach, and proclaim. Why would you say that God no longer sends His Holy Spirit to aid us in such matters? Why stop at Acts 15? This goes against the written Word of God (Mt. 28:20 and Jn 15:16, for example).
"In 2 Peter 3:15-16 Peter describes ALL of Paul’s epistles as Scripture."
Even if I was not to argue that statement, which letters were written by Paul? Can we say, without using Tradition, which letters are actually from Paul. We have no originals, Paul was concerned about forgeries in several verses (I'll get them later if you want actual verses, I don't have them handy now). Only a few actually state that Paul wrote them. So you are relying on extra-Biblical tradition to tell you which letters are Scripture! Who wrote the Gospels? Who wrote Acts? Hebrews? Etc... Your basis of the content of the NT is entirely based on a circular argument, totally ignoring that tradition is how we can know what books are rightfully placed (and none left out).
"I think it would be more useful to your argument to reference an Apostolic tradition that cannot be found in the written Word"
How about the correct way to interpret Scripture? My long previous post regarding Arianism explains the danger of presuming that private interpretation can be done. Peter tells us this in his epistle as well. I would like to tell you, also, that all teachings of the Catholic Church that have been defined are found within Scripture, either implied or explicit. Apostolic Tradition and Scripture are taken as part of God's Word. We use both so that we know what we are to believe, teach, and to proclaim. Arianism is a perfect example of relying on human ration and Scripture alone without the use of Apostolic Tradition.
Brother in Christ