How would a protestant cope with being in a first century church?

[JonNC]

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.

Please take a look at that again. If they are not required to believe one thing because it is not in scripture, then why are they required to believe the other which you stated is not in scripture?

What in the creeds is not confirmed by scripture? What in the creeds is not rightly reflecting the truth of the Gospel?
Holy Theotokos speaks directly to the Incarnation - Christ fully man and fully God at His conception. The Incarnation is central to our understanding of the nature of the Savior - an article of faith, directly related to Salvation. It is very Christocentric. The Assumption, however reasonable, is not directly related to salvation - not Christocentric. It also isn’t contradictory of scripture, leaving folks like me to believe it. So, while Theotokos is doctrine, the Assumption is idiaphoron.
This is the role of sola scriptura, not to deny or exclude Tradition, but to confirm Tradition when it rightly reflects scripture.

Jon

 

[Dave_Noonan]

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.

He obviously understood that gentiles outside of Israel could convert. Why else would he tell them that? He could have simply used the argument that you are using. Im sure it would have looked something like “hey guys, why are you tring to be circumcised? You are foreigners. Our law teaches that you cannot convert.” But instead he made it clear that if they do convert, then they are debtors to the whole law.

I think your idea of conversion is a little anachronistic, but we’ll go with it. Jews were not out to convert the world to Judaism, nor does the OT point out, command, or require that foreigners should be circumcised. It’s not that they can’t “convert”; Paul’s point is that they don’t have to. Here Paul is not teaching anything contrary to scripture. If he is, you’ll have to show me where scripture commands that foreigners be circumcised.

The whole gentile getting circumcised argument is really complicating the op anyways. In keeping with the OP, jewish christians, would be in a position of having to decide, will they follow God’s previous command to circumcise their children? Or will they follow Paul? On the topic of circumcision, how are they going to use scripture as their final authority? They should have rejected Paul’s teaching, by the standards of sola scriptura. Even if Galatia had only a gentile congregation, it is still a moot point. Paul’s teaching does not apply to just gentiles.

Paul clearly shows how they can use scripture as their final authority on the subject of circumcision in Galatians chapter 3 where he describes the nature of the covenant with Abraham. As I pointed out before, Paul doesn’t simply argue from his own apostolic authority, he backs up what he asserts with a good scriptural argument.

The problem is you cannot prove that is what Peter was preaching. Scripture only says he acted contrary to his own belief.

As I pointed out, Paul accuses Peter of compelling Gentiles to live as Jews (Gal 2:14).

That is a moot point. They are trying to serve God. The OT scripture applies to that point.

Again, there’s nothing in scripture compelling all gentiles to be circumcised. This is exactly the point, the James people are trying to force something that is not in scripture. If you want to make an assertion, back it up from the text.

Well it isn’t up to me. We need facts. Why do you prefer reading into the text?

Everyone “reads into the text.” We have to interpret what we have; we have no other choice. I think my interpretation is more logical that yours on this point (that the “people from James” agree with James), but you’re free to hold your own opinion.

So are you saying that Lutherans believe you are required to hold to doctrines that are not found in scripture?

Jon’s pretty much covered this, and as a Lutheran, he can probably speak to it better than I can.

 

[jphilapy]

What in the creeds is not confirmed by scripture?

Um I didn’t say that. You said it. Please read your own words. You said the creeds are not in scripture. Perhaps what you meant to say is, they are in scripture, but not their exact wording?

 

[jphilapy]

I think your idea of conversion is a little anachronistic, but we’ll go with it. Jews were not out to convert the world to Judaism, nor does the OT point out, command, or require that foreigners should be circumcised. It’s not that they can’t “convert”;

It isn’t relevant to the OP wheather the jews are trying to convert gentiles or not, wheather the OT says to convert gentiles or not. What is relevant is you are practicing sola scriptura in the first century, and you want to know how to obey God. So you think you have to live in israel to get circumcised? Then do it. Isn’t that the neccesary conclusion you would come to if you are practicing sola scriptura as a gentile in galatia in the first century?

Paul’s point is that they don’t have to. Here Paul is not teaching anything contrary to scripture. If he is, you’ll have to show me where scripture commands that foreigners be circumcised.

As I stated, the teaching of Paul applies to jews as well. So is he teaching that Jews do not have to be circumcised?

Paul clearly shows how they can use scripture as their final authority on the subject of circumcision in Galatians chapter 3 where he describes the nature of the covenant with Abraham. As I pointed out before, Paul doesn’t simply argue from his own apostolic authority, he backs up what he asserts with a good scriptural argument.

Ok, show me an OT scriptural argument in Galatians canceling out circumcision that Paul uses that you could have figured out yourself from reading the OT without Paul telling you.

Again, there’s nothing in scripture compelling all gentiles to be circumcised. This is exactly the point, the James people are trying to force something that is not in scripture. If you want to make an assertion, back it up from the text.

Why does it matter if the jews or ot compell gentiles. What matters is if a gentile wants to serve God. Does the OT speak to that with instructions on how he can?

Everyone “reads into the text.” We have to interpret what we have; we have no other choice. I think my interpretation is more logical that yours on this point (that the “people from James” agree with James), but you’re free to hold your own opinion.

How am I reading into the text? The text does not say they agreed with James or that James agrees with them. I am simply reflecting that fact. So how is that reading into the text? Wouldn’t the right thing be to say, the text doesn’t say it?

And is it because you read something into the text, that makes it so?

 

[Erich]

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?
I’ll wait till you produce that apostolic teaching about preachers being “sent” before I decide on the relevance of this

Romans 10:15 – “And how shall they preach, except they be sent?”

I don’t know offhand whether Galatians was written before or after Romans (the Epistles appear in the NT in size order, not chronological order), but it should be noted that when the canon of scripture was decided, the criteria were:

1. age (i.e. date written)
2. liturgical/communal use in the early Church
3. apostolic authorship
4. truth

How would something gain widespread liturgical/communal use in the early Church, except by being copied/spread? Eventually, the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, etc. accumulated copies of all (or nearly all) the Epistles – whether or not they were initially addressed to them or not.

 

[Erich]

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?

1 Kings 12:28-32 (NIV)

28 After seeking advice, the king made two golden calves. He said to the people, “It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem. Here are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.” 29 One he set up in Bethel, and the other in Dan. 30 And this thing became a sin; the people came to worship the one at Bethel and went as far as Dan to worship the other.
31 Jeroboam built shrines on high places and appointed priests from all sorts of people, even though they were not Levites. 32 He instituted a festival on the fifteenth day of the eighth month, like the festival held in Judah, and offered sacrifices on the altar. This he did in Bethel, sacrificing to the calves he had made. And at Bethel he also installed priests at the high places he had made.

Obviously he divided the church – anyone who worshipped at Bethel or Dan no longer worshipped at Jerusalem – and appointed illegitimate priests.

 

[Erich]

*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.

Also good to know that, now, you know how one of the pope’s titles – Servus Servorum Dei (Servant of the Servants of God) – came to be. But you probably prefer a Biblical source, so here’s Matthew 20:
25. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.26. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;27. And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant.

 

[Radical]

Romans 10:15 – “And how shall they preach, except they be sent?”

yes, we in Galatia are aware of the need to send those with the gift of evangelism to preach, so that the unsaved may hear, then believe and be saved. Perhaps I misunderstood your comment…did you mean that all preachers must be sent, if so, then I disagree based on what Paul has provided. Did you mean that preachers must be sent to the Jews and Gentiles so that they have an opportunity to hear the gospel, if so, then we agree. My congregation sends missionaries all over the place using the same authority that it uses to appoint pastors.

 

[Erich]

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.

Saints Timothy and Titus were appointed to their positions of authority by succession:

1 Timothy 4:14 –
Do not be careless about the gifts with which you are endowed, which were conferred on you through a divine revelation when the hands of the elders were placed upon you.

Titus 1:5 –
For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee.

Haydock Commentary on Titus 1:5 –
Ver. 5. That thou shouldst,[4] &c. The sense cannot be, that he was to change any thing S. Paul had ordered, but to settle things which S. Paul had not time to do; for example, to establish priests[5] in the cities, that is to say, bishops, as the same are called bishops v. 7; and, as S. Chrys. and others observe, it is evident from this very place, that the word presbyter was then used to signify either priests or bishops. If S. Jerom here meant that bishops were only placed over priests by ecclesiastical and not by divine institution, as some have expounded his words, his singular opinion against so many others is not to be followed. Wi. — That the ordaining of priests belongs only to bishops, is evident from the Acts and from S. Paul’s epistles to Timothy and Titus. It is true, S. Jerom seems to express himself as if in the primitive Church there was no great difference between priests and bishops, yet he constantly excepts giving holy orders, (ep. 85) as also confirming the baptized, by giving them the Holy Ghost by imposition of hands and holy chrism; (dial. cont. Lucif. c. iv.) which pre-eminence he attributes to bishops only. To assert that there is no distinction between a priest and bishop is an old heresy, condemned as such by the Church. See S. Epiphanius, hær. 75. S. Austin, hær 53.

 

[JonNC]

Um I didn’t say that. You said it. Please read your own words. You said the creeds are not in scripture. Perhaps what you meant to say is, they are in scripture, but not their exact wording?

Correct. Word for word they are not there, but the truths of the creeds are there. Hence, sola scriptura does not exclude Tradition, it merely hold it accountable to scripture. The creeds and early councils rightly reflect scripture.

Jon

 

[Erich]

we don’t have shrines in our church, in case you are wondering.

And you probably don’t have photos or other mementos (aka “statues”) of family members anywhere in your home or office either, right?

 

[jphilapy]

Correct. Word for word they are not there, but the truths of the creeds are there. Hence, sola scriptura does not exclude Tradition, it merely hold it accountable to scripture. The creeds and early councils rightly reflect scripture.

Jon

So I am not sure how that goes against the definition of sola scriptura that I put forth here and am arguing against. Scripture is your only infallible authority for faith and morals. Which means, if something is not taught in scripture than you are not required to believe it. I mean literally, something is not found in scripture. And if it contradicts scripture than you are not required to believe it. You so far seem to affirm that view.

 

[Erich]

My congregation sends missionaries all over the place using the same authority that it uses to appoint pastors.

By what authority do sheep appoint their own shepherds?

“Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son.” (Acts 20:28) – the “overseers” (or elders - in the Greek, episkopoi, or bishops) of the church have guardianship over “the flock” of God’s people.

Further, to be a “pastor” (shepherd, overseer, elder) is also to be an “ambassador” (“authorized messenger or representative”) for Christ (2 Cor. 5:18-20) – thus, an ambassador must be sent.

And we’re back to what does “to be sent” mean, except that someone in authority over you has conferred the privilege and authority upon you?

 

[JonNC]

So I am not sure how that goes against the definition of sola scriptura that I put forth here and am arguing against. Scripture is your only infallible authority for faith and morals. Which means, if something is not taught in scripture than you are not required to believe it. I mean literally, something is not found in scripture. And if it contradicts scripture than you are not required to believe it. You so far seem to affirm that view.

Here’s how the Epitome of the Formula of Concord puts it:

1] 1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.

3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.

Hope that helps.

A question in return; is there anything in (Catholic) Tradition that is contrary to scripture?

Jon

 

[jphilapy]

Here’s how the Epitome of the Formula of Concord puts it:

Hope that helps.

Yep. In summary, if it is not taught in scripture then you are not required to believe it.

A question in return; is there anything in (Catholic) Tradition that is contrary to scripture?

Jon

That is a vague question. There is Tradition and tradition. There is Scripture and there is Oral both being part of Tradition. can you be more specific?

 

[jphilapy]

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.

And that antennae would be?

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.

We may be able to get to this part after we have discussed the first part.

 

[JonNC]

That is a vague question. There is Tradition and tradition. There is Scripture and there is Oral both being part of Tradition. can you be more specific?

I intentional captialized Tradition, but let’s say Oral Tradition. And I’m speaking from a Catholic perspective. Is there anything in Catholic Oral Tradition that conflicts with scripture?

Jon

 

[jphilapy]

I intentional captialized Tradition, but let’s say Oral Tradition. And I’m speaking from a Catholic perspective. Is there anything in Catholic Oral Tradition that conflicts with scripture?

Jon

I don’t believe so. But if you have something you want to discuss, it would better to make it into a new thread so that this one is not hijacked. unless of course it is relevant to the op.

 

[JonNC]

I don’t believe so. But if you have something you want to discuss, it would better to make it into a new thread so that this one is not hijacked. unless of course it is relevant to the op.

No, nothing specific, just wanted to point out, in the course of our conversation on this thread, that fact. Its just good that we agree , you believe that Catholic doctrine does not contradict scripture, and I believe mine doesn’t.

But I concur that, perhaps, our conversation has veered off the topic of the OP.

Peace,
Jon

 

[Le_Cracquere]

We may be able to get to this part after we have discussed the first part.

That dratted inconvenient second part–motion to table! However, it’s precisely what renders the first part not as trenchant as you seem to think.