I don’t really see the difference, but on the other hand I don’t think it’s all that relevant to this particular discussion. Perhaps James did the same–i.e., acted contrary to his stated position? In any event I think we can agree that Paul is rebuking them (Peter and the James party) for their actions.No, he doesn’t “flip-flop” on his position - he acts contrary to his plainly stated teaching. There is a huge distinction. In any case, James was in favour of accepting the Gentiles without circumcision, as we see at the end of Acts 15.
If I am a Christian in the first century church and in a gentile congregation, why would I care what was in the Torah? I’m not a Jew and it wouldn’t be my scripture. However, if at this time Peter came to my congregation, I am sure he would break out the knife or none of us would be Christians.Here is the scenario. You are a protestant christian in the church of Galatia during the first century. Paul writes you a letter telling you that you don’t need to be circumcised. Knowing that the OT scripture teaches that all need to be circumcised, how are you going to test the truth of Paul’s statement? It seems to me that by the standards of sola scriptura, you would have to reject Paul’s teaching on at least two points. 1) It contradicts existing, i.e., ot scripture. 2) It is not taught in scripture.
The above two points seem redundant but they are there to set the context of this discussion. First of all if you can test that Paul was not teaching contrary to OT scripture. Then you still have the issue that he was teaching doctrine not found in scripture, which still needs to be tested. So how would you test him in either of those situations?
If Jesus is to be our judge in the world to come (I'm not sure how all that will work out), I suspect that he won't be concerned about our doctrines or our church connection. He would want to know how much we loved God and one another. "And now abideth faith, hope and love, these three; and the greatest of these is love." I would guess that a whole lot of arrogant Christians who indulge in pompous tribalism - "our church is the only true church and yours is not" - are going to be shocked when Christ scolds them for their misplaced priorities. Because he is loving and merciful, maybe he will forgive their narrow-mindedness, but not without a 'talking-to'.How do you know it is only a gentile congregation? Jews were dispersed.If I am a Christian in the first century church and in a gentile congregation, why would I care what was in the Torah? I’m not a Jew and it wouldn’t be my scripture. However, if at this time Peter came to my congregation, I am sure he would break out the knife or none of us would be Christians.
This is a trick question. There were no protestants in the first century…if there were protestants they would have been referred to bytheir proper name…hereticsHere is the scenario. You are a protestant christian in the church of Galatia during the first century. Paul writes you a letter telling you that you don’t need to be circumcised. Knowing that the OT scripture teaches that all need to be circumcised, how are you going to test the truth of Paul’s statement? It seems to me that by the standards of sola scriptura, you would have to reject Paul’s teaching on at least two points. 1) It contradicts existing, i.e., ot scripture. 2) It is not taught in scripture.
The above two points seem redundant but they are there to set the context of this discussion. First of all if you can test that Paul was not teaching contrary to OT scripture. Then you still have the issue that he was teaching doctrine not found in scripture, which still needs to be tested. So how would you test him in either of those situations?
Then if I were in a Jewish congregation and had the Torah, then I would already be circumcised and Paul’s teaching wouldn’t apply to me since I would not need to be concerned whether I needed to be circumcised or not since I already had been.How do you know it is only a gentile congregation? Jews were dispersed.
Why would you care about torah? Because you practice sola scriptura so you need scripture to test Paul’s teaching to make sure it is on track.
Jews care about torah because it is the revelation of God and they are commanded to be circumcised by that revelation. Since they were christians, they needed to justify Paul teaching them something differently than what they were taught their whole life.
Um - yes. Theology is how we know who Christ is.Yes, Jesus said no one cometh unto the Father but by me. Does that mean we all have to share the same theology?
Following the law is certainly very important, as well. We need to do both.Christ certainly differed with the religious establishment of his day. On a couple occasions (e. g., “the Good Samaritan”) he held up a Samaritan as the example of righteousness. Now, Samaritans were not Jews according to the Jews. They had intermarried and adopted a different faith. Besides, remember how Jesus was asked: “How shall I inherit eternal life?” A perfect time for Jesus to say ‘you must believe in me and belong to my church’. But no, he said love God and love one another. Then he proceeded to give the parable of the Good Samaritan.
Are you talking about following the mosaic law?Um - yes. Theology is how we know who Christ is.
If you don’t believe that Christ is God, then can you be considered a Christian? The divinity of Christ is a theological concept.
Following the law is certainly very important, as well. We need to do both.
I don’t think that argument works. Remember the Jews were dispersed. They were practicing Passover outside of Israel. But I don’t want to get off on a passover argument. The fact is Gentiles outside of Israrel could convert to judaism as Paul makes it clear when writing to galatians who are outside of israel in Gal 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.As I noted, this is legislation about eating the Passover and only applies only to a specific group of people, the “gerim” (resident aliens living in Israel).Foreigners cannot participate in the Passover. Galatians would have been foreigners under Israelite law.
The problem is you cannot prove that is what Peter was preaching. Scripture only says he acted contrary to his own belief.The point is, the followers of Jesus were not becoming Jews–this is what Peter was preaching and, conversely, what Paul is so upset about! (Gal 2:14)
That is a moot point. They are trying to serve God. The OT scripture applies to that point.That’s the whole point of Paul’s letter to the Galatians. The followers of Jesus are not under the Jewish law because they are not becoming Jews. The Galatians are gentiles, not Jews.
Again you have no proof that it was Peter’s views. Scripture is clear that Peter was acting contrary to his own belief.See Gal 2:12-14. We only have the express views of Peter (in the mouth of Paul)–Paul rebuked Peter because he was compelling gentiles to live as Jews–which to Paul is a pretty crazy notion.
Well it isn’t up to me. We need facts. Why do you prefer reading into the text?About the party of James all we know is that “they came from James.” I think it would be logical that those who “came from James” agreed with James, but that’s certainly up to you.
There is no “THE Protestant definition” of anything, Protestantism being very diverse in belief and practice. Sola scriptura means “by Scripture alone.” Solo scriptura means “only scripture.” (Again, this is a distinction that Catholic apologists make to help distinguish between these views–it may or may not be helpful to you. I’m sure you can search on this site to get more info about the difference.)
So are you saying that Lutherans believe you are required to hold to doctrines that are not found in scripture?Sola scriptura is at best a hermeneutical method and at worst, a religious slogan. But I think it is best understood in seeing how the method was applied in context. For example, when controversy developed over infant baptism during the Reformation, Luther argued that that: 1) there is nothing in the Bible prohibiting infant baptism 2) it is logical that God would want infants to receive grace and that infant baptism is pleasing to God 3) that it has always been part of church tradition. Thus, you keep on baptizing infants. (There’s a large section in this in Luther’s Large Catechism, which I’m sure is available on line.) The principle of sola scriptura is NOT that you have to find support in the Bible for everything, but that you first look at whether what you are doing/proposing/advocating is contrary to scripture. Scripture may indeed be the final arbiter, but it is not the only source.
Actually you do need to be concerned if you plan to have children. Paul’s teaching says you don’t have to circumcise your children when the torah says you do. So by sola scriptura standards, wouldn’t you have to argue that Paul is teaching contrary to the Torah?Then if I were in a Jewish congregation and had the Torah, then I would already be circumcised and Paul’s teaching wouldn’t apply to me since I would not need to be concerned whether I needed to be circumcised or not since I already had been.
It is relevant to this discussion because if you don’t have your facts straight, then you really can’t make a valid point.I don’t really see the difference, but on the other hand I don’t think it’s all that relevant to this particular discussion. Perhaps James did the same–i.e., acted contrary to his stated position? In any event I think we can agree that Paul is rebuking them (Peter and the James party) for their actions.
Do we all have to believe that “no one cometh unto the Father but by me.”. If you agree that we all do then why would you argue that it is ok for us to not share theology? Isn’t saying that we have to believe Jesus teachings requiring people to share the same theology?Yes, Jesus said no one cometh unto the Father but by me. Does that mean we all have to share the same theology?
It depends on what you mean by “not found in scripture”. Some doctrines are implicit - Trinity, Theotokos, etc., in scripture, And yet, Lutherans hold to these.So are you saying that Lutherans believe you are required to hold to doctrines that are not found in scripture?
ANDLutherans hold to the three great ecumenical creeds, the first six councils, and they are not “in scripture”.
How is that not a contradiction?For example, Luther states regarding the Assumption, that the Blessed Virgin is in heaven, though how she got there we can’t know. And since it is not clear in scripture, it cannot be an article of faith.
Jon
Well in the OP i clarified my question. The person is practicing sola scriptura. That is what would constitute a protestant in this scenario. Please read the rest of the OP to get the full context.Well, we’re kind of begging the question here. In a first-century context, it’s not clear what would constitute being a “Protestant.” One might as well ask how a Catholic or Orthodox Christian would cope–our modern understandings of Christ, God, and Christ’s Church are inseparable from the past twenty centuries of ecclesiastical & world history, and I wager that all of us would find various things in the Pauline Church to feel unsettled or unmoored by.
None of that, however, would NECESSARILY invalidate our 21st-century perspectives. And we can’t say we’d find something that would undermine Protestantism unless we shared Catholic assumptions about early Church history, just only someone with a Protestant view of history could say Paul’s contemporaries would make short shrift of Catholicism.
good so farSo, living in Galatia in the first century, you are able to recognize that miracles, signs, and wonders are marks of authenticity to establish that someone has been sent directly by God – and that there is even a Scriptural basis for this…
yepYou also recognize that Paul is an apostle; in fact, being in Galatia, you probably also understand a little Greek, so you probably also know that the word “apostle” is Greek for “sent one.”
No, he never said that at Galatia. He talked about apostles quite a bit and how he and other apostles were sent, but as for elders and deacons he provided instructions as to how we should select them by ensuring that they were to be blameless and above reproach. A couple of us are thinking about writing down some of the teachings that we have heard from the apostles…we haven’t got a title for it yet, but the Didache and The Teaching of the Apostles have been suggested. In its early draft C 15 reads: Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers.…none of us remember any apostle teaching that a preacher must be “sent”. Perhaps we have forgotten something. Perhaps you have a letter from an apostle where that idea is clearly taught?With your own ears you may even have heard Paul say that preachers must be “sent.”
I’ll wait till you produce that apostolic teaching about preachers being “sent” before I decide on the relevance of this…but I do note that at Acts 8:14 it reads: * When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. (NIV) * So, I guess that from your POV the other apostles would have had authority over Peter and John. Good to know.Now, what does “to be sent” mean, except that someone in authority over you has conferred the privilege and authority upon you? It should go without saying that the one who confers the authority must be superior in authority to the one being commissioned, since no one can confer that which he does not possess himself.
illegitimately appointing pastors? This is what you came up with? The guy gave the people false Egyptian gods. He built shrines for the false gods and appointed priests for the worship of the false gods. You think it is proper to categorize that as dividing a church and appointing illegitimate pastors?. Deep down, you even know that there is a Scriptural basis for this… when King Jereboam began to rule the northern tribes of Israel, it is noted that his sin was not dividing the kingdom, but dividing the Old Testament “church” by setting up alternative places of worship, and illegitimately appointing pastors:
what do you mean by this? They were eligible for certain service b/c of their ancestry.The Levites claimed their authority via succession (i.e. the ordinary method of claiming authority)…
No, he holds his office b/c he was appointed in accordance with the requirements of an overseer set out in Titus and 1 Timothy. We wouldn’t dream of appointing someone who didn’t meet those qualifications…since we are asking about one another’s church, has your church ever violated those directions/gone against scripture and appointed a leader that doesn’t meet the required qualifications of an overseer? Further, we wouldn’t dream of allowing someone who didn’t meet those qualifications to remain in office… has your church ever violated those directions/gone against scripture and allowed a corrupt overseer to remain in office? In any event, we strive to follow scripture. There it tells us that believers in Christ receive the Spirit and become joint heirs with Jesus. When two or three of us gather in his name, Jesus is there. As a congregation we are properly called the body of Christ (same as the Corinthian church of the 1st century). All these things, possessing the Spirit, having Christ among us and being the body of Christ give my congregation considerable authority…more than enough to appoint and dismiss pastors (but we don’t “send” them to ourselves).Does your pastor claim his office by succession (i.e. can he demonstrate that he was called by a superior authority who himself had a legitimate claim to his office)? Or does he claim his office by extraordinary calling (i.e. can he show the required signs and wonders that authenticate his ministry)?
Scripture doesn’t speak well of those who set up shrines for someone other than God…we don’t have shrines in our church, in case you are wondering.Scripture does not speak well of those who illegitimately take this position upon themselves.
Korah was a Levite. The Levites had been seperated from the rest of God’s children for special service, but Korah wasn’t satiisfied with that and he wanted the priesthood too. Korah and his lot wanted to replace Aaron as priest. Korah’s fate doesn’t bode well for any other group that wants a priesthood for itself w/o God’s approval. Fortunately we don’t need to bother with this issue today as we have no need for a priesthood. Christ is the Christian’s priest. He has put an end to the need for sacrifices…which is why there is no priestly clergy in the NT (except for the ones serving at the temple under the old covenant.)In Numbers 16, Korah set himself up as an illegitimate authority against God’s appointed authorities, and was destroyed for his audacious act.
How IS it a contradiction? The three creeds are the confirmed universal faith of the Church, rightly reflecting what must be believed.AND
How is that not a contradiction?
It is a contradiction because in the one you say lutherans are required to believe even though not in scripture where as the other you say they are not required to believe because it is not in scripture.How IS it a contradiction? The three creeds are the confirmed universal faith of the Church, rightly reflecting what must be believed.
Jon
Well, the full context isn’t really computing here. The NT is either unwritten or in the process of being written, so someone who lived/died by Sola Scriptura (NOT the sole defining criterion of a Protestant, by the way) would have to find some other antennae to guide him. Similarly, a modern-day Catholic might find very little of today’s well-formed ecclesiastical apparatus & clear lines of authority to show him his proper way, or find them in embryonic forms that cast more shadow than light. As I said, we’d all be somewhat confused. Not sure where you’re going with this.Well in the OP i clarified my question. The person is practicing sola scriptura. That is what would constitute a protestant in this scenario. Please read the rest of the OP to get the full context.