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

[simspt]

In both cases, unnecessary, as the bishops met together in council, a practiced ended with the schism. So, which bishops do we believe, now that they do not agree? Where do we turn? What source do we have, directly from the apostles?

And certainly, the writings of the apostles did exist before Pope Innocent I.

Jon

ahh the sinful misuse of the bible by those bishops. the doctrine of SS (that doesnt reject tradition but clearly states it is fallible unlike the Scriptures) to the rescue
Who then determines the misuse of the Bible?? The Arian controversy shows the Bible must be interpreted and determination must be made as to the proper interpretation. What is the standard against which this sinful misuse of the bible is measured?? Cant be the Bible or we are going in circles. Arius blows the perspicuous idea of the bible away in my opinion. The early church did not even have a closed canon and the church fathers appealed to many writings to support their views as authoritative which compounds the confusion. ECFs like Tertullian’s use of the rule of faith does not seem to be synonymous with the Bible but rather tradition of proper doctrine spread by the Apostles and deposited and safeguarded by the apostolic church. this tradition guided proper interpretation of the bible but was not the Bible itself. The scriptures belong to the church in his mind. IF as Tertullian has stated that the rule of faith safeguarded interpretation then it doesnt make sense to claim the Bible and rule of faith were seen as the exact same. The whole doctrinal struggle prior to, during and after the council of Nicea was a battle of biblical interpretation within the church. Who gives the right to the church to accept one interpretation over another when both are using scriptures to justify their doctrines.

 

[Roy5]

jphilapy

 I'm not sure the apostles all agreed. It appears that the early Christians divided over - for example - how much of the Jewish law they should keep, such as kosher regulations and circumcision. 

 Frankly, I find many contradictions in the Bible. How, for example, is Christ's command that we love one another, even our enemies, compatible with some of the heinous atrocties committed or 'ordered' by God? When God drowned everybody but Noah and his family was that the mercilful, forgiving deity incarnated in Christ? Or, when Joshua was told to murder all the inhabitants of Jericho (except the prostitute Rahab and her family), and when Saul was commanded by Jehovah to slaughter every remaining Amalekite? We could go on and on, but there are many other contradictions. How about John 1:18 - "no man hath seen God at any time"? What about Christ? And John 14:9? What about Ex. 19:20f? There are various contradictions in rendering the same story, such as the Resurrection. Which women went to the tomb? How many angels were at the tomb when they arrived? I even find a serious contradiction between the idea that Jesus lived a sinless life and Matt. 19:17: Why call me good? There is only one good who is God. Or, John 14:28:  "for the Father is greater than I am." Isn't this contradicting that teaching that all three 'parts' of the Godhead are equal? that Christ = God. And we could go on and on. I find chapters like Ex 21, Lev. 20, and Deut. 22-23 in stark contradiction to the Sermon on the Mount when Christ keeps saying" "Ye have heard it said....but I say unto you."

 

[Erich]

First you want to apply a NT term “church” to an OT nation

I’m going to guess you hold to the concept of an “invisible church” made up of the elect who are known only to God – as contrasted with the “visible church” which is the institutional body on earth.

The Jewish people were most definitely a church, and a visible one at that. They were the “elect”, the “chosen people of God,” and they knew it. Not only were they known to God, but they were known to each other:

Genesis 17:7-11 – “I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. … You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you.”

Exodus 6:7 – “I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God. Then you will know that I am the LORD your God, who brought you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians.”

Leviticus 26:12 – “I will walk among you and be your God, and you will be my people.”

and it isn’t dividing a church when you change the god(s) that you worship

Jeroboam knew exactly what he was doing when he said to the people, “It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.” He was trying to divide the chosen people of God, i.e. the church as it existed at that time:

1 Kings 12:26-28 – "And Jeroboam said in his heart, Now shall the kingdom return to the house of David: If this people go up to do sacrifice in the house of the LORD at Jerusalem, then shall the heart of this people turn again unto their lord, even unto Rehoboam king of Judah, and they shall kill me, and go again to Rehoboam king of Judah. Whereupon the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold, and said unto them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. "

You are trying too hard to force this passage to serve your purpose…

You’re trying too hard to avoid seeing the obvious.

“authority of succession” …still looking for that phrase used in connection with either Tim or Titus

Who said anything about “authority of succession”? Timothy and Titus were appointed to their positions of authority **by **succession – which comes through the laying on of hands in ceremony: “Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands… guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.” (2 Tim. 1:6, 14)

If you’re still looking for phrases, I also already showed you 1 Timothy 4:14 … is that not in your Bible?

 

[Erich]

yes, Titus was directed to appoint elders in the churches b/c Paul left that undone. Paul was appointed to one task and Titus was appointed to another task and the elders were appointed to yet another task…that isn’t a chain of succession the way you want to portray it.

You will of course object that Titus is nowhere in Scripture explicitly called an apostle. From By What Authority?It is implicit in what kind of authority is accorded to the apostles. Scripture testifies that only apostles are given full authority. Compare what is said of St. Paul and St. Timothy (both of whom are called “apostles”) with what is said of St. Titus:

St. Paul - “…nor did we seek glory from men, whether from you or from others, though we might have made demands as apostles of Christ.” (1 Thess. 2:6)

St. Timothy - “As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine…” (1 Tim. 1:3)

“Command and teach these things.” (1 Tim. 4:11)

“Remind them of this, and charge them before the Lord to avoid disputing about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers.” (2 Tim. 2:14)

St. Titus - “This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you.” (Tit.1:5)

“Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.” (Tit. 2:15)

“…our boasting before Titus has proved true. And his heart goes out all the more to you, as he remembers the obedience of you all, and the fear and trembling with which you received him.” (2 Cor. 7:14-15)

Scripture also shows that only the Apostles refer to the Gospel message as their own personal possession:

“…when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.” (Rom. 2:16)

“Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ…” (Rom. 16:25)

“Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descended from David, as preached in my gospel.” (2 Tim. 2:8)

“Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians… for our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction.” (1 Thess. 1:1 & 5)

“Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians… God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. To this he called you through our gospel…” (2 Thess. 1:1 & 2:13-14)

The Apostles possess the Gospel message precisely because it was (as the above passages demonstrated) “entrusted” to them, i.e., given to them, and not taken by them on their own initiative. This is completely in keeping with the restriction imposed by Heb. 5:4.

 

[Erich]

May I suggest that you get out of the 19th century and have a look at some more modern Catholic scholars such as Fr Sullivan.

Fr. Sullivan’s book, No Salvation Outside the Church? (Paulist Press) refers to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as a ‘medieval’ teaching. He never mentioned that in 1949 Pope Pius XII affirmed this ‘medieval’ teaching in the Letter of the Holy Office issued by Cardinal Ottaviani.

Dominus Iesus, the CDF Notification on Fr. Dupuis S.J, and other Magisterial texts also contradict Fr. Sullivan.

In this, at least, Fr. Sullivan’s teachings (his book was promoted by Catholic liberals in the universities and seminaries) are heretical. So, that’s at least one strike against him.

Here is what McBrien (another catholic scholar) has stated

That would be ***dissident ***Catholic scholar McBrien. From Dealing with Dissent: Fr. Richard McBrien:

The first edition of Catholicism was published in 1981. Almost immediately the doctrinal committee of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops pointed out serious problems with it and asked McBrien to make revisions.3 The third edition was released in 1994—still without an imprimatur. After studying it for two years, the Secretariat for Doctrine and Pastoral Practices released a statement indicating that the book was inaccurate or misleading in describing Church teachings on the Virgin Birth, the ordination of women, and other issues. Not only had McBrien failed to remove the previously noted ambiguities from the previous editions, but he had introduced new ones.

The bishops’ report stated that McBrien minimized Catholic teachings and practice:

On a number of important issues, most notably in the field of moral theology, the reader will see without difficulty that the book regards the official Church position as simply in error. The bishops also questioned the manner in which McBrien made use of dissenting theologians, and they noted sections of the book where the presentation is not supportive of the Church’s authoritative teaching. They warned that “for some readers it will give encouragement to dissent.”

The bishops cautioned that McBrien reduced the teaching of the pope and bishops to “just another voice alongside those of private theologians.” In so doing, he created the impression that the official teachings of the Church have validity only when they are approved by a “consensus” of theologians, including Protestant ones. In short, McBrien elevated the theological arguments of dissenting theologians to (or above) the level of the magisterium. The bishops concluded that Catholicism should not be used in theological instruction.4 But given its title, McBrien’s position of authority at Notre Dame, and his high profile as a Catholic commentator, readers of Catholicism are likely to believe they are reading authentic Catholic teaching. That is not the case. As one reviewer said of the third edition, "Whatever else it may do, it is likely to leave Catholic students doctrinally illiterate."5
​

There are lots of adjectives to describe Fr. McBrien; “Catholic scholar” isn’t anywhere near the top of the “most accurate” list. (It does, however, explain the source of your well-intentioned but misguided insistence that there wasn’t a priestly office in the 1st century church, and that Titus and Tim weren’t bishops in the modern sense.)

 

[Radical]

I don’t know why you want to persist in this line of argument. Scripture is clear that a false teacher can do miracles and fortell the future. Even Jesus taught that point himself: Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

So? None of this changes the fact that scripture repeatedly presents signs and wonders as the tool used in particular instances to verify that the message was from God. Do you think Moses should have refused to believe God’s message on the basis that Satan can also pull off miracles? You realize that this isn’t science, right. One isn’t going to be able to prove (by objective standards) that someone is presenting a message from God. It is a matter of faith and miracles do assist in the formation of that faith….it is seen over and over in scripture. I don’t know why you persist in ignoring that message from scripture on this point.

Do you want people to believe anyone who does signs and wonders?

well, so far the only miracle worker that I have met in first century Galatia is the apostle Paul…and I am inclined to believe him. I note your objection that he might be a false prophet, but that seems to be just wild speculation on your part. Other than it being a remote possibility to consider, why do you think I should suspect Paul of being a false prophet? What about him makes you think that he might be a false prophet? If nothing, then why all the fuss?

Of course, it is in the church that He founded as well as the scripture they wrote.

…and this has been proven to you how?

Ok so you should clear this up for me.

Up until now you kept saying “only authority” …I guess now you have realized that a qualifier such as “infallible” or “reliable” or “final” needs to be added. For me it is “reliable”.

Just because a man cannot see over the horizon, does not mean there is nothing there. Your arguement is subjective.

Actually I never provided an argument at that point….your comment makes no sense to me.

Really? It seems you are arguing that you will submit to everything the apostle Paul taught. So even if he is fallible? I am just thinking, what about Peter? He was not acting according to the gospel so you would follow suite?

I don’t have access to everything that the apostle Paul taught so I can hardly submit to all of it. I recognize Paul’s apostolic authority as very reliable, but I wouldn’t think of him as being infallible on all matters. This should be easy for you to understand as your Pope is claimed to be infallible only on certain occasions (and not WRT to all that he says and writes).

I don’t think you are going far enought. Jesus established the church. The apostles are part of that church. Their writings are the product of that church. So that by definition makes the church the reliable source that Jesus left on earth.

This reasoning isn’t good. At the same time that the apostles were part of the church, there were false prophets and false apostles and preachers of a different gospel that were part of the church. The latter also wrote and taught and their writings were not reliable presentations of the revelation from God. Using your reasoning one should then conclude that their existence makes the church an unreliable source that Jesus left on earth. Your reasoning produces conflicting conclusions.

 

[Erich]

pictures yes, statues no

A statue is any sculpted, molded, or cast figure of a person or animal, or of an abstract form. So, yes, that would include anything your kids might have done as an art project … as well as lots of stuff that falls under the umbrella of “statue”

Oh, so now they are shepherds?..a little while ago they were servants (when that title suited you). Masters do order servants about, but trying to determine how things worked by reference to one figurative title to the exclusion of other such titles seems a little silly.

Words mean things. It goes 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. In other words, a congregation’s vote cannot suffice, Scripturally speaking, to appoint a man as “pastor,” since the congregation (of inferior authority) cannot confer superior authority upon a man.

From By What Authority?

What is a “pastor?” The word is from the Latin, in fact, and it means - quite simply - “shepherd.” If you call yourself a pastor, you are claiming to be a shepherd of God’s flock.

The term “pastor” is also interwoven with the biblical term “overseer,” or “elder” - in the Greek, episkopos, or “bishop.” We see this in St. Paul’s farewell discourse to the elders of Ephesus: “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). There is the connection: the “episkopoi” of the church at Ephesus have guardianship over “the flock” of God’s people.

Further, to be a “pastor” (shepherd, overseer, elder) is also to be an “ambassador” for Christ (c.f. 2 Cor. 5:18ff).

This is no light responsibility, and Scripture tells us that this position is never self-appointed. That is, no man can merely take it upon himself, of his own initiative, to start shepherding God’s flock: “And one does not take the honor upon himself, but he is called by God, just as Aaron was.” (Heb. 5:4)

…
Clearly, the restriction of Heb. 5:4 applies to all “shepherds,” all “priests,” all “pastors”: the office, because of its solemn duties and grave responsibilities (James 3:1), cannot be taken upon oneself, but rather, one must be called to this office by God. The same, of course, goes for “ambassadors.”
…
The Apostles, then, did not take their office and authority upon themselves, but were appointed by a Superior Authority, Jesus Christ. The Scriptures attest to the unique authoritative status of the Apostles in several ways
…

Scripture shows that only the Apostles are “entrusted” with the care of the Gospel message
…
Scripture also shows that only the Apostles refer to the Gospel message as their own personal possession
…
The Apostles possess the Gospel message precisely because it was “entrusted” to them, i.e., given to them, and not taken by them on their own initiative. This is completely in keeping with the restriction imposed by Heb. 5:4.
…
The Gospel message and the necessary authority that accompanies its preaching was passed on from God to Jesus Christ, then to the Apostles. The question we must ask now is this: after the original 12 Apostles, how is this Gospel and apostolic authority passed on? Is it passed on at all? After the death of the last Apostle, can any individual who feels “called” by God simply take up the mission and message and carry on where the Apostles left off?

The answer to this question is plainly “no,” as we have already begun to see from Scripture. The mission and the message can only be passed on by someone who first possessed it. That is, the mission does not merely entail preaching the message, but with it comes the authority to spiritually “reproduce” and pass on the necessary authority to the next generation.
…
There can be no other reason why St. Paul would leave his two spiritual “sons” (Ss. Titus and Timothy) explicit instructions about the qualifications for overseers, elders, bishops, etc. (c.f. 1 Tim 3:1-7, Tit. 1:5-9), than that he expects them to confer apostolic authority on new men who meet those requirements.
…
In the context of conferring His authority on the Apostles, commissioning them to go in His name to build and govern His Church, Jesus does the very same thing His Father did to the First Adam: He breathes upon them, gives them the Spirit, and “fathers” them, spiritually speaking.

This is why the Apostles then turn around and “father” new sons (that is, pastors, bishops, etc., with apostolic authority) - because this is what Jesus did to them. Thus we see St. Paul referring to Ss. Titus and Timothy (both second-generation apostles, according to Scripture) as his “sons,” and calling himself their “father”
…

 

[Radical]

I’m going to guess you hold to the concept of an “invisible church” made up of the elect who are known only to God – as contrasted with the “visible church” which is the institutional body on earth.

I hold to the concept of both an “invisible” church and a “visible” church. There is a Baptist church and a Moravian church in my neighbourhood that form part of the visible church…the visible church has factions now and had factions at Paul’s time. Did you think that the Church at Corinth disappeared and became invisible as soon as some declared that they followed Paul whilst others declared that they followed Appollos? Perhaps the church at Galatia disappeared when some said Gentiles must follow Jewish customs and others did not?

The Jewish people were most definitely a church, and a visible one at that.

right, and the donkey was a pick-up truck…a visible one at that.

Timothy and Titus were appointed to their positions of authority **by **succession – which comes through the laying on of hands in ceremony:

The Spirit and spiritual gifts and blessing were also imparted through the laying on of hands…doesn’t make them “successive”. …I am still looking for “succession” to be used anywhere (repeat anywhere) in my Bible WRT apostles or overseers.

 

[Radical]

You will of course object that Titus is nowhere in Scripture explicitly called an apostle.

why? did someone make that claim? You are like a pre-recorded message…no matter what is said you respond with a bit from this article:By What Authority?…and it is not even a well thought out piece.

Here is an example of what I mean. It reads (as quoted by you):

*Scripture also shows that only the Apostles refer to the Gospel message as their own personal possession:

“…when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.” (Rom. 2:16)

“Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ…” (Rom. 16:25) *

…so now, when David called God “my Savior”, he would have made God his personal possession? More than the use of “my” is needed.

 

[Radical]

…There are lots of adjectives to describe Fr. McBrien; “Catholic scholar” isn’t anywhere near the top of the “most accurate” list.

McBrien is a recognized Catholic scholar if you like it or not…you should try to get used to it as fewer and fewer Catholics scholars are going to be able to present the history of Christianity in a manner that you would like to hear

(It does, however, explain the source of your well-intentioned but misguided insistence that there wasn’t a priestly office in the 1st century church, and that Titus and Tim weren’t bishops in the modern sense.)

Do you know of a widely respected modern scholar who thinks that there was such an office?..keep in mind that there is no reason why secular historian would have to reject such a concept out of hand…though there is plenty of reason for a conservative Catholic historian to find such an office (no matter what)

 

[Radical]

A statue is any sculpted, molded, or cast figure of a person or animal, or of an abstract form. So, yes, that would include anything your kids might have done as an art project … as well as lots of stuff that falls under the umbrella of “statue”

…you do realize that this hypothetical art project statue is not also a hypothetical shrine, right?

Words mean things. It goes 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. In other words, a congregation’s vote cannot suffice, Scripturally speaking, to appoint a man as “pastor,” since the congregation (of inferior authority) cannot confer superior authority upon a man.

have you ever played organized sports? If so, was there a team captain? If so, he could have been appointed by the coach, but it is also quite possible that he was selected and appointed by the team. He is sent by the team to talk to the Refs. He both leads the team and serves the team…he doesn’t have to be appointed by way of the previous team captain physically handing him the letter “C” patch.

Where in scripture does it say that a congregation is of inferior authority? The congregation is the body of Christ and the pastor is merely an eye or an ear. The congregation has many members who possess the Spirit and many members with gifts of the Spirit. A pastor is but one man. Where would you get the idea that the congregation is inferior?

Further, to be a “pastor” (shepherd, overseer, elder) is also to be an “ambassador” for Christ (c.f. 2 Cor. 5:18ff).

this isn’t restricted to pastors…all are given the ministry of reconciliation and all Christians are to be Christ’s ambassadors.

Scripture shows that only the Apostles are “entrusted” with the care of the Gospel message

show me where it says “only” apostles were so entrusted

Scripture also shows that only the Apostles refer to the Gospel message as their own personal possession

show me where it says the gospel belonged only to the apostles

The Gospel message and the necessary authority that accompanies its preaching was passed on from God to Jesus Christ, then to the Apostles. The question we must ask now is this: after the original 12 Apostles, how is this Gospel and apostolic authority passed on? Is it passed on at all? After the death of the last Apostle, can any individual who feels “called” by God simply take up the mission and message and carry on where the Apostles left off?

if he is empowered by the Spirit, obviously he can…it is about what God’s Spirit can do and that is not restricted to a mechanical passing of the baton

There can be no other reason why St. Paul would leave his two spiritual “sons” (Ss. Titus and Timothy) explicit instructions about the qualifications for overseers, elders, bishops, etc. (c.f. 1 Tim 3:1-7, Tit. 1:5-9), than that he expects them to confer apostolic authority on new men who meet those requirements.

how about b/c Paul didn’t want them appointing boneheads to lead those local churches? Wanting holy men to lead doesn’t demand that Paul had this whole apostolic succession thing in mind…it just doesn’t follow

This is why the Apostles then turn around and “father” new sons (that is, pastors, bishops, etc., with apostolic authority) - because this is what Jesus did to them. Thus we see St. Paul referring to Ss. Titus and Timothy (both second-generation apostles, according to Scripture) as his “sons,” and calling himself their “father”

Paul calls himself the father of the Corinthians…are they all successors? You need to find a new article to link as (IMHO) the one you used is absolutely terrible.

 

[JonNC]

=simspt;7258011]ahh the sinful misuse of the bible by those bishops. the doctrine of SS (that doesnt reject tradition but clearly states it is fallible unlike the Scriptures) to the rescue

Sarcasm aside…

Who then determines the misuse of the Bible?? The Arian controversy shows the Bible must be interpreted and determination must be made as to the proper interpretation. What is the standard against which this sinful misuse of the bible is measured?? Cant be the Bible or we are going in circles. Arius blows the perspicuous idea of the bible away in my opinion.

That’s fine. The practice of hermeneutics is the role of the Church. You are arguing aganist something I didn’t propose.

The early church did not even have a closed canon and the church fathers appealed to many writings to support their views as authoritative which compounds the confusion. ECFs like Tertullian’s use of the rule of faith does not seem to be synonymous with the Bible but rather tradition of proper doctrine spread by the Apostles and deposited and safeguarded by the apostolic church. this tradition guided proper interpretation of the bible but was not the Bible itself. The scriptures belong to the church in his mind. IF as Tertullian has stated that the rule of faith safeguarded interpretation then it doesnt make sense to claim the Bible and rule of faith were seen as the exact same.

Tertullian also didn’t have to deal with a schism of the apostolic Church, where patriarchs, using the same Tradition, are in disagreement for a thousand years now.

The whole doctrinal struggle prior to, during and after the council of Nicea was a battle of biblical interpretation within the church. Who gives the right to the church to accept one interpretation over another when both are using scriptures to justify their doctrines.

Good question.

Jon

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Part 1

If you were living in pre nt times then you wouldn’t have any way of knowing about God except through Judaism. And you could not worship God except through Judaism. So is it illogical to think that a gentile must convert to judaism in order to serve God? On what basis is that illogical?

See Romans 1:19-20. It might be logical, but there’s no way for a foreigner to convert.

As I demonstrated before, God made a way for gentiles to convert to Judaism. Once they are converted, what happens? vs 44 says they can eat of the passover, vs 48 he shall be as one that is born in the land, vs 49 ONE LAW for both homeborn and stranger. This is not just talking about passover legislation:

You keep assuming that the “stranger” in your translation (גר) is the same category as a foreigner, which it’s not. The foreigner ( בן–נכר ) in Exodus 12:43 is permanently banned from the Passover meal as I keep pointing out. The בן–נכר is totally out in this legislation–no divine plan for “conversion.” A Greek living in Galatia is in no way, shape or form a גר . He is a בן–נכר . What the James people are doing in Galatia is arguably contrary to scripture.

And what does Paul tell the gentiles: Gal 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

Right, Paul is angry because the James people have told gentiles that they had to be circumcised. Now these gentile Galatians who have had themselves circumcised are subject to the whole law. It is this innovation of the James people that Paul is objecting to.

Since they are keeping God’s law outside of Israel, it would follow that Gentile converts would follow suite in that they also can convert, be circumcised, partake of the passover outside of Israel. Pauls is clear on that point.

I think you’re assuming that gentile conversion to Judaism was a common phenomenon in the first century, but the evidence to back up this assumption is just not there. True, gentiles may have congregated at synagogues for various reasons (many of them probably civic), but I can’t think one scholar who thinks these gentiles (sometimes referred to as “Godfearers”) actually went through with circumcision–it would be too much of a cultural taboo in the Greek world. You might want to check out the following: amazon.com/Synagogue-Late-Antiquity-Lee-Levine/dp/0897575091 or the Wikipedia article on same.

So that means if you were a first century gentile that never heard the gospel preached, and you were seeking to know God, then you would have to attend synagogue. (Where else are you going to learn about God at?) The jews would have taught the gentiles how to seek God the same as the scripture says. And in order for you to partake of God’s covenant, you would need to be circumcised.

No, I don’t think they would have circumcised gentiles.

 

[Fair_Lady]

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?

I’m a little late at jumping in here and I haven’t read all the discussion, so my answer might be a duplicate. While the new testatment Christians were in a unique time in history where the new covenant was just being established, I would have to say that they would have had to have referred to the prophecies written in the OT (the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah come to my mind first off) in order to know if what they were being taught and what they were eye witnesses to (the death and resurrection of Christ) were true. The death and resurrection of Christ did away with the old covenant (circumcision being one aspect) and brought in the new covenant exactly as prophecied in scripture many years before. The Bereans were especially astute in searching the scriptures to see if what Paul was teaching was true (read Acts 17).

It appears that those early days were a very trying time for many people in the history of Christianity. They were facing many new things with respect to their faith. Out with the old and in with the new. But God in His sovereign wisdom had ways of paving the way in order to prepare His people for the New Covenant.

 

[simspt]

Sarcasm aside…

That’s fine. The practice of hermeneutics is the role of the Church. You are arguing aganist something I didn’t propose.

Tertullian also didn’t have to deal with a schism of the apostolic Church, where patriarchs, using the same Tradition, are in disagreement for a thousand years now.

Good question.

Jon

sorry about the sarcasm…
doesnt the ultimate question then end up being in relation to SS who has the correct interpretation of the scripture. what good are authoritative scriptures when taken out of the context of the Church. If the Paraclete has been ultimately guiding the Church (if you accept this premise which cant be proven but is an issue of faith IMO)through all of the internal (eg Arian controversery, canon formation etc) and external (eg Gnostics) conflicts then arent Christians left asking how could the Scriptures be the final authority when the truths contained therein are inseparably linked to their correct interpretation. IMO the Scriptures are like what Rahner has said the self objectification of the Church in written form and so pure and successful that they can be used to pass down the apostolic church as a norm for future generations. I agree with you 100% that the scriptures are a norm for all Christians but would argue historically there has always been a rule of faith or its equivalent concept (tradition) that has been used by the church as the correct norm for interpreting scripture. Both Tertullian and Irenaeus realized scriptures alone were not enough for refuting heresy because their opposition could just as easily appeal to the scriptures. This tradition or rule originated much earlier evidenced by the creeds and confession that Paul mentions. This tradition also guided the formation of the canon centuries later. Practically speaking the interpretation of scripture (not scripture alone) has been equally authoritative for Catholics and Protestants it seems to me, Catholics clearly acknowledge this in their acknowledgement of Church authority and their theology of the church. To my mind then its interesting to ask if the Paraclete was involved ultimately guiding the church back then what about now? again the question is who gives the right to a church to decide these things when there are obvious contradictions between what Christians accept or reject. Does it even matter? Thats not a sarcastic question.

 

[Erich]

I am still looking for “succession” to be used anywhere (repeat anywhere) in my Bible WRT apostles or overseers.

2 Timothy 2:2 – The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, **entrust **these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

Only Apostles are entrusted with the care of the Gospel message… and this passage refers to four generations of succession: Paul, Timothy, the generation to which Timothy will entrust the things which he has heard from Paul, and the generation they will entrust.

…you do realize that this hypothetical art project statue is not also a hypothetical shrine, right?

Certainly not a shrine or a reliquary in the religious sense , but it’s more than a bit disingenuous to claim on the one hand that “we don’t have shrines in our church” (as you did in post #77) or maybe even “we don’t have icons/religious art/stained glass windows” (I’ve seen more than one place of Christian worship that has nothing identifiably Christian anywhere to be found) yet also admit “I have photos of family members/friends all over my house” or “our kid’s artwork is proudly displayed on our refrigerator” or “a corner of my desk at work is reserved for photos of my kids and the ‘Number One Dad’ statuette they gave me for Father’s Day one year.”

Where would you get the idea that the congregation is inferior?

As you know, the word ‘pastor’ is from the Latin, and it means ‘shepherd’. Anyone who calls himself a pastor is claiming to be a shepherd of God’s flock.

Where would you get the idea that sheep can appoint their own shepherd?

show me where it says “only” apostles were so entrusted

Show me anyone who was so entrusted (Paul, Timothy, Titus, Barnabus, Apollos) and you can see for yourself we’re only talking about apostles.

While we all have the responsibility to repent and believe (Mark 1:15), only the Eleven were given the authority – and charged with the responsibility – to teach all nations as He had taught them.

Paul calls himself the father of the Corinthians

Kinda negates your quoting of Matthew 23 in post #115, doesn’t it?

Scripture also shows that only the Apostles refer to the Gospel message as their own personal possession:

• “…when, according to my gospel*, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.” (Rom. 2:16)
• “Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel* and the preaching of Jesus Christ…” (Rom. 16:25)
  …so now, when David called God “my Savior”, he would have made God his personal possession? More than the use of “my” is needed.

I never said that it’s just the use of the word “my” which is needed.

Acknowledging God as one’s Savior is not the same as referring to the Gospel message as one’s own personal possession. David acknowledges God as his Savior, but he doesn’t refer to God’s message as “my gospel” – and neither does Mary (in Luke 1) for that matter.

The OP asked, “Knowing that the OT scripture teaches that all need to be circumcised, how are you going to test the truth of Paul’s statement?” One way to do so is to establish the authority by which Paul makes his statements in the first place; By What Authority certainly does so, but requires a lot more characters than the forum character limit to do so.

 

[Erich]

right, and the donkey was a pick-up truck…a visible one at that

The power output of the pick-up truck’s engine is still measured in horsepower is it not?

 

[Erich]

McBrien is a recognized Catholic scholar if you like it or not…you should try to get used to it as fewer and fewer Catholics scholars are going to be able to present the history of Christianity in a manner that you would like to hear

Although Fr. McBrien was once the head of the Catholic Theological Society of America, his views on theology–today at any rate–are way out of line with the Church’s official teaching. His book Catholicism is highly erroneous and an unreliable guide to the Church’s teachings.

When a major newspaper or television network features some controversial issue related to Catholicism, one person likely to be quoted is Fr. McBrien. Why? Because he gives the press what it wants to hear. He can be counted on to reduce magisterial doctrine and Vatican directives to matters of opinion that can be explained away or rejected when they do not conform to modern norms or the popular culture.

Saying that Fr. McBrien speaks for the Catholic Church is rather like saying I speak for your branch of Protestantism.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Although Fr. McBrien was once the head of the Catholic Theological Society of America, his views on theology–today at any rate–are way out of line with the Church’s official teaching. His book Catholicism is highly erroneous and an unreliable guide to the Church’s teachings.

When a major newspaper or television network features some controversial issue related to Catholicism, one person likely to be quoted is Fr. McBrien. Why? Because he gives the press what it wants to hear. He can be counted on to reduce magisterial doctrine and Vatican directives to matters of opinion that can be explained away or rejected when they do not conform to modern norms or the popular culture.

Saying that Fr. McBrien speaks for the Catholic Church is rather like saying I speak for your branch of Protestantism.

An honest question—I’d really like to understand this as an outsider. If Fr. McBrien holds unreliable and dissident views, then why does he hold such a prominent post at a Catholic university? It seems to me that if someone taught something contrary to core denominational views at say, a Southern Baptist seminary, that person would be out like a light–tenure or no. I also personally know a woman who was fired from Notre Dame for her personal views on women’s ordination–views which were not part of her teaching or publications. (I’m not saying that they SHOULD have people on their faculty that disagree with Catholic teaching, I’m just trying to understand how this works.) Is it that Catholics are more open to or tolerant of internal dissent? How is this standard applied? I’ve always been confused about this.

 

[jmcrae]

An honest question—I’d really like to understand this as an outsider. If Fr. McBrien holds unreliable and dissident views, then why does he hold such a prominent post at a Catholic university? It seems to me that if someone taught something contrary to core denominational views at say, a Southern Baptist seminary, that person would be out like a light–tenure or no. I also personally know a woman who was fired from Notre Dame for her personal views on women’s ordination–views which were not part of her teaching or publications. (I’m not saying that they SHOULD have people on their faculty that disagree with Catholic teaching, I’m just trying to understand how this works.) Is it that Catholics are more open to or tolerant of internal dissent? How is this standard applied? I’ve always been confused about this.

So have I, but it seems as if it’s the norm to have teachers and professors in Catholic schools with a wide variety of view-points - there are even Jews and atheists on staff at our local Catholic University here in town, and it’s considered one of the more orthodox schools.