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

  • Thread starter Thread starter jphilapy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jphilapy

Guest
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?
 
Here is the scenario. You are a protestant christian in the church of Galatia during the first century.
no need to specify that I am of the protestant brand at that time…tis redundant. 😉
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?
I’ll apply the measure that he supplied to the Corinthians with:

*The things that mark an apostle–signs, wonders and miracles–were done among you with great perseverance. *

If he performed signs, wonders and miracles with great perseverance I would have to acknowledge his status as an apostle with such authority…plus I wouldn’t want to get circumcised anyhow…I’d be inclined to accept that teaching if at all possible.
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.
Sola scriptura is an answer to a question that we ask today. It obviously wasn’t a good answer when Christ was walking the earth, it wasn’t a good answer when OT prophets were giving prophecies and it wasn’t a good answer when apostles were teaching. However, unless we still have someone on earth with the reliability/infallibility of Christ, or an OT prophet or an apostle, then it still might be the right answer for today.
 
no need to specify that I am of the protestant brand at that time…tis redundant. 😉
I don’t see how it would be redundant unless of course they were practicing sola scriptura, which you obviously admit they were not.
I’ll apply the measure that he supplied to the Corinthians with:

*The things that mark an apostle–signs, wonders and miracles–were done among you with great perseverance. *

If he performed signs, wonders and miracles with great perseverance I would have to acknowledge his status as an apostle with such authority…plus I wouldn’t want to get circumcised anyhow…I’d be inclined to accept that teaching if at all possible.
But doesn’t your point assume that Paul is infallible? I mean every single thing he wrote or said was without error?
Sola scriptura is an answer to a question that we ask today. It obviously wasn’t a good answer when Christ was walking the earth, it wasn’t a good answer when OT prophets were giving prophecies and it wasn’t a good answer when apostles were teaching. However, unless we still have someone on earth with the reliability/infallibility of Christ, or an OT prophet or an apostle, then it still might be the right answer for today.
“an answer” from what authority?

Jeff
 
But doesn’t your point assume that Paul is infallible?
no…just as the resurrection testified as to the identity of Jesus, Paul’s miracles testified as to his authority. I don’t equate apostolic authority with an ability to be totally free from error. That said, Paul’s ability to perform miracles would have been a sign that he was indwelt by the Spirit in a very special way…and such is a tacit endorsement of his teaching by God himself.
I mean every single thing he wrote or said was without error?
not even close…I bet he called people by the wrong name and made spelling mistakes
“an answer” from what authority?
reason, common sense and the like
 
no…just as the resurrection testified as to the identity of Jesus, Paul’s miracles testified as to his authority. I don’t equate apostolic authority with an ability to be totally free from error. That said, Paul’s ability to perform miracles would have been a sign that he was indwelt by the Spirit in a very special way…and such is a tacit endorsement of his teaching by God himself.

not even close…I bet he called people by the wrong name and made spelling mistakes

reason, common sense and the like
You think making spelling mistakes is a sign of being MORALLY a fallible authority? Ridiculous.

And what to make of the fact that numerous miracles have been claimed by holy people of every faith under the sun? Does this ‘testify’ to ALL these people being authoritative, since there is every bit as much witness for their ‘authority’ as for Pauls?

By the way, since when are reason and common sense any basis for moral authority? Many perfectly rational and commonsensical people conclude, on the basis of that reason and common sense, that there is no God at all, let alone that the precepts of Christianity are an appropriate guiderule for our lives.

There was nothing either reasonable or commonsensical about Christ’s Passion, nor His teaching that we must take up our crosses daily, deny father and mother, not even LOOK at someone with lust, turn the other cheek and the like.

Nor is there anythign commonsensical or reasonable about Paul’s teachings that celibacy is preferable to marriage for those able to be celibate, that women shouldn’t teach or have authority, that bishops should only be married once etc etc. He freely admitted that his message appeared to be foolishness to many.
 
You think making spelling mistakes is a sign of being MORALLY a fallible authority?
I doubt it…the phrasing of your question makes little to no sense to me
And what to make of the fact that numerous miracles have been claimed by holy people of every faith under the sun? Does this ‘testify’ to ALL these people being authoritative, since there is every bit as much witness for their ‘authority’ as for Pauls?
Please be reminded that I live in Galatia in the first century. I have seen Paul’s miracles first hand and know of their legitimacy. Show me another miracle worker who is doing miracles of the same quality and with the same perseverance as I have seen done by Paul… then I’ll have a quandary. Until then, the “mark” indicated by Paul would seem to be sound, but feel free to argue against Paul…just produce some of your own miracles so you can enjoy a level playing field.
By the way, since when are reason and common sense any basis for moral authority?
since when to we ignore those things in making decisions?
Nor is there anythign commonsensical or reasonable about Paul’s teachings that celibacy is preferable to marriage for those able to be celibate, that women shouldn’t teach or have authority, that bishops should only be married once etc etc. He freely admitted that his message appeared to be foolishness to many.
…and as I have pointed out, both Christ and Paul could perform miracles to back up their claims to authority. What have you done to determine if the CC’s claim (that its teaching is free from error) is valid or not? …tossed a coin perhaps?
 
While I do not advocate a sola scriptura approach, most intelligent Protestants would say that it really doesn’t apply in the era of the apostles.
 
they would be required to say sola scripture didn’t apply if they wanted to be christians and not jews, since the only scriptura around at the death of christ would be what is today called the old testament.
 
no…just as the resurrection testified as to the identity of Jesus, Paul’s miracles testified as to his authority. I don’t equate apostolic authority with an ability to be totally free from error. That said, Paul’s ability to perform miracles would have been a sign that he was indwelt by the Spirit in a very special way…and such is a tacit endorsement of his teaching by God himself.
And that means what? We don’t need to test his teaching?
reason, common sense and the like
So the idea that scripture is the ultimate authority on earth, is not a doctrine from God? But from man’s reasoning?
 
they would be required to say sola scripture didn’t apply if they wanted to be christians and not jews, since the only scriptura around at the death of christ would be what is today called the old testament.
Translation. They would need to deny sola scriptura as contending against the faith once for all delievered.
 
Translation. They would need to deny sola scriptura as contending against the faith once for all delievered.
If sola scriptura were true, there wouldn’t be Christianity. Either SS is true or it isn’t. It can’t ‘become true’ since the Old testament was still the inspired word of God, even in Jesus’ time. So either SS is true, and thus christianity is false, or christianity is true, rendering SS false.
 
While I do not advocate a sola scriptura approach, most intelligent Protestants would say that it really doesn’t apply in the era of the apostles.
Intellegent? Or Clever?

Either way I still dont think it is logical.
Sola Scriptura is either a doctrine to be believed, or it is just an opinion.
 
If sola scriptura were true, there wouldn’t be Christianity. Either SS is true or it isn’t. It can’t ‘become true’ since the Old testament was still the inspired word of God, even in Jesus’ time. So either SS is true, and thus christianity is false, or christianity is true, rendering SS false.
Not that I needed to translate. You say it well 🙂
 
Not that I needed to translate. You say it well 🙂
The only other option would be to say that SS applies only to the new testament. So that would throw out all the old testament prophecies and guidelines, including, but not limited to tithing. So no more asking for donations for them, I guess.
 
Intellegent? Or Clever?

Either way I still dont think it is logical.
Sola Scriptura is either a doctrine to be believed, or it is just an opinion.
Neither do I. But I suppose it isn’t impossible.
The only other option would be to say that SS applies only to the new testament. So that would throw out all the old testament prophecies and guidelines, including, but not limited to tithing. So no more asking for donations for them, I guess.
In general they would say that theOT had to be understood in light of the NT. In the era of the apostles, that would mean that the OT would have to be interpreted by the apostles. So Paul interpreting OT rules would actually make perfect sense to that sort of Protestant.
 
Please be reminded that I live in Galatia in the first century. I have seen Paul’s miracles first hand and know of their legitimacy. Show me another miracle worker who is doing miracles of the same quality and with the same perseverance as I have seen done by Paul… then I’ll have a quandary. Until then, the “mark” indicated by Paul would seem to be sound, but feel free to argue against Paul…just produce some of your own miracles so you can enjoy a level playing field.
So, 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:
(Exodus 4) 1 “But,” objected Moses, “suppose they will not believe me, nor listen to my plea? For they may say, ‘The LORD did not appear to you.’” 2 The LORD therefore asked him, “What is that in your hand?” “A staff,” he answered. 3 The LORD then said, “Throw it on the ground.” When he threw it on the ground it was changed into a serpent, and Moses shied away from it. 4 “Now, put out your hand,” the LORD said to him, “and take hold of its tail.” So he put out his hand and laid hold of it, and it became a staff in his hand. 5 “This will take place so that they may believe,” he continued, “that the LORD, the God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, did appear to you.” 6 Again the LORD said to him, “Put your hand in your bosom.” He put it in his bosom, and when he withdrew it, to his surprise his hand was leprous, like snow. 7 The LORD then said, “Now, put your hand back in your bosom.” Moses put his hand back in his bosom, and when he withdrew it, to his surprise it was again like the rest of his body. 8 “If they will not believe you, nor heed the message of the first sign, they should believe the message of the second. 9 And if they will not believe even these two signs, nor heed your plea, take some water from the river and pour it on the dry land. The water you take from the river will become blood on the dry land.”
You 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.” With your own ears you may even have heard Paul say that preachers must be “sent.”

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. 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:
(1 Kings 12) 30 This led to sin, because the people frequented these calves in Bethel and in Dan. 31 He also built temples on the high places and made priests from among the people who were not Levites.
…and as I have pointed out, both Christ and Paul could perform miracles to back up their claims to authority. What have you done to determine if the CC’s claim (that its teaching is free from error) is valid or not? …tossed a coin perhaps?
So, what happened between first century Galatia and twenty-first century Great White North? The Levites claimed their authority via succession (i.e. the ordinary method of claiming authority); Moses, Jesus, and St. Paul claimed their authority via direct calling by God – and they were able to back up their extraordinary claims of authority by performing extraordinary miracles.

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)? If even Jesus submitted to this proof-test, how can any mere man exempt himself from this same test, unless he wishes to say he is greater than even Jesus? On a side note, are you certain that the man who shepherds your soul is a legitimate leader? Or are you following a self-appointed shepherd who is in rebellion against God’s appointed authorities?

Scripture does not speak well of those who illegitimately take this position upon themselves. In Numbers 16, Korah set himself up as an illegitimate authority against God’s appointed authorities, and was destroyed for his audacious act.
 
Intellegent? Or Clever?

Either way I still dont think it is logical.
Sola Scriptura is either a doctrine to be believed, or it is just an opinion.
Sola scriptura is not a doctrine. It is a practice. I don’t “believe” sola scriptura. I believe scripture is the word of God, and as such, is an appropriate norm by which to hold teachers and teachings accountable, in the post apostolic era.

Jon
 
Please be reminded that I live in Galatia in the first century. I have seen Paul’s miracles first hand and know of their legitimacy. Show me another miracle worker who is doing miracles of the same quality and with the same perseverance as I have seen done by Paul… then I’ll have a quandary. Until then, the “mark” indicated by Paul would seem to be sound, but feel free to argue against Paul…just produce some of your own miracles so you can enjoy a level playing field.
Actually, the only genuine miracle-workers I know of are Catholic. The children of Fatima were Catholic. Bernadette was Catholic. Brother Andre and Padre Pio were Catholic.

All of their miracles have been scientifically verified. 🙂
 
Actually, the only genuine miracle-workers I know of are Catholic. The children of Fatima were Catholic. Bernadette was Catholic. Brother Andre and Padre Pio were Catholic.

All of their miracles have been scientifically verified. 🙂
I don’t think scientific is the word you are looking for here. And many “Catholic” miracles happened before there was any process to investigate them

In any case, don’t you see a fundamental problem with only believing a miracle that is verifiable, by science or some other process?
 
And that means what?
it means that I can be assured that Paul is sent by God
We don’t need to test his teaching?
following the Bereans’ example would only make us more noble, but I think the validating miracles would be the clincher
So the idea that scripture is the ultimate authority on earth, is not a doctrine from God? But from man’s reasoning?
Tis like the doctrine of the Trinity…logically derived from what we have, but not spelt out in detail by God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top