the church and the new testament

I posted this question on my old journal and an acquaintance, whose comments are in blue, wrote back.

Which came first, the Church or the New Testament?

What do you mean, Theologos? The New Testament writings, or the New Testament / Covenant as in "This is the new testament" in my blood?

Oh, right, sorry about the confusion! :) I meant the New Testament writings.

The Church came first. The Church's birthday, if you will, was on Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended on the apostles and all those people like Mary (those who were mentioned as praying with the apostles in Acts 1). Obviously there were no New Testament writings at this point. I hope this helps.

I guess the question was more a matter of ontology than chronology, though it was meant to suggest a connection between the two. It was really a question about sola Scriptura and how the Church relates to Scripture. Perhaps I should have said: which comes first, the Church or the New Testament? -- though that sounds as if it were an either-or option, which isn't the case because it was the Church, or rather the members of the body of Christ, who wrote the New Testament in the first place. But the Gospel was first preached by word of mouth, and weren't the four Gospels written as a supplement to what was told? A few of the epistles (I just finished reading First Corinthians) seem to suggest an oral tradition outside of themselves, e.g. "For what I received I passed on to you" (15:3) and the like. But oral traditions are sneaky; maybe they continue today, or maybe they died out. Any ideas?

These are GREAT questions and certainly fun to talk about. I'm going to have to think this one over, so don't be surprised if it is a day or two before you here back from me. ;-) I'm actually in 2 Corinthians myself. I just concluded 1 Corinthians before this. I LOVE those epistles.

[Later]

I'm so sorry that it has taken me so long to respond to this stimulating question. You are right. 1 Corinthians 15 is definitely a reiteration of oral tradition. I guess that is the way the Church really had to go about things throughout the first century. I don't know if the Gospels were "supplemental." I just know that they were written in order to instruct the faithful in the life and teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ (and all of course have a different perspective or point-of-view that they want to get across that makes them unique and wonderful). Sola scriptura is a very interesting concept, and I am sure you know is one that Protestants are very ardent about. I am wondering if you are making a reference to sola scriptura because at first the Church had to rely on oral traditions until, let's say, 60 or 70 A.D. for the first Gospels or ten to fifteen years before that for the epistles?

I definitely agree about the personal quality of the Gospels; each one is written in a distinctive voice. St. Luke is a good story-teller, and St. John has a nice touch here. On the question of sola Scriptura, it may be that I need some specific clarification about what sola Scriptura really is; do you know of a good site explaining it?

The Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 is really interesting. First because the Hebrew Scriptures, specifically the prophets, are cited as relevant guidance on the issue of whether or not Gentiles require circumcision (vs. 16-18). The Apostles, in their time, were drawing in part on the Old Testament for the source and rule of their faith, just as the early Church fathers would draw on the age of the Apostles and the Old Testament, just as the later Church fathers and theologians would draw on the early Church fathers and the New Testament and the Old Testament, just as, etc. There seems to be an ever-deepening and ever-increasing source from which to draw instruction and guidance: all of which finds its meaning and origin in the passion, death and resurrection of our Lord. The action of the Christian tradition, then, seems to be a kind of perpetual recapitulation or sublimation, whose center is Christ but whose reach is the world, its present and its past.The second thing that draws my attention is that, after they have debated the question, they come to the conclusion that the Gentiles do not need to be circumcised. The initial objection that "some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees" made, that is, that Gentiles need to be circumcised, is no longer a valid objection. And in the letter they send to the Gentiles the council says, "it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you, etc." (28-29). It appears then that the Apostles and the other participants of the council (the "elders") had a sense that the Holy Spirit was guiding their decision. At the least, this seems to be one of the primitive seeds that grew into what later theologians and councils said about the authority of councils.

If sola Scriptura really means (which maybe it doesn't) that the only infallible source and rule of faith and practice is found in Scripture, wouldn't most Protestants have to rejection the Nicene Creed? Yet, as far as I know, mainline Protestant theology does accept the Nicene Creed -- which I find somewhat puzzling. If they accept the creed which the Council declared, do they accept that Council's excommunication and condemnation of the Arian heresy? If not, then why accept the creed? (And how separate is the creed from the anathemas?) If so, on what authority did the Council speak? If on their own authority, then why should they be followed; but if by the power of the Holy Spirit then what of the Council of Trent?

Those are more beautiful questions that you raise. Here are two websites (the first one is of much more importance in this topic...)http://www.sola-scriptura.ca/whatis.htm http://www.mbrem.com/bible/bible1.htm Regarding the Nicene Creed, I know I accept it because I believe it reflects the teaching of Scripture. I imagine that most Protestants feel the same.

[And David Talcott added]

Theologos--you run some interesting blogs. They're decent reading. Sola Scriptura does mean that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and morals. Yet many Protestant denominations utilize subordinate standards, standards which they believe to be faithful summaries of Scriptural truth. The Westminster Confession and the various Baptist Confessions are typical examples of these. Hence, the only final authority is Scripture (not Scripture + tradition or anything else). Yet, secondary standards can be used since they are based solely on Scripture. Scripture remains the sole source. Protestant churches (almost universally) accept the Nicene Creed and the early Ecumenical councils as secondary standards, believing them to be in entire conformity with Scripture and legitimate uses of the authority of the church. Hope this helps some,
David Talcott
talcott.blogspot.com

That ended the correspondence.

I certainly believe that the truths taught in the Nicene Creed are present in Scripture. But why do Protestants accept some parts of the council but not others? Why do they accept the creed but not the authority implicit in the anathemas? Because of sola Scriptura. This dictates that the creed is true, for it agrees with Scripture, and the authority of the church is non-existent, because it disagrees with Scripture. And yet Christ gave authority to his disciples (Jn 20:21-23), and especially to Peter (Mt 16:17-19).

I wonder what is meant by "legitimate uses of the authority of the church".