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

[jmcrae]

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?

In the case of the miracles of Bernadette (which are still taking place today, at Lourdes) medical professionals give their opinions on whether the diseases in question have the ability to “cure themselves” spontaneously - if people were being “cured” of the common cold by remaining in Lourdes for at least seven days (the common cold runs its course in seven days) then you’d be right to be skeptical, but people are being cured of serious brain diseases, cancers, and more - and their own doctors are saying that it was not by the power of conventional medicine.

Scientific proof is only part of the equation, of course - if you don’t also have faith that God can do these things through His chosen instruments, then they simply remain unexplained phenomena.

 

[simspt]

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?

The early Church would of checked Pauls teaching with that of his predecessors since he was a newcomer Johnny come lately to the scene to make sure he was not preaching falsely. This is like asking what Jesus would have thought about Priests having to be college educated… Jesus didn’t live in a Church and nor did these early Christians have their tradition entirely in written form yet.

 

[jphilapy]

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

Jon,

I don’t know where you get the idea “Sola scriptura is not a doctrine. It is a practice.” The word doctrine means teaching and goes hand in hand with practice. Sola scriptura is a doctrine and the use of scripture as your sole authority is the practice.

Sola scriptura does not mean “an appropriate norm by which to hold teachers and teachings accountable, in the post apostolic era.”. Even the Catholic Church does that.

Sola Scriptura means it is the only norm to hold them accountable to. hence the word Sola which is latin for alone.

" I don’t “believe” sola scriptura."
You believe that scripture alone is the ultimate authority right? If so then you do believe it. Try saying “I believe scripture alone is my ultimate authority” without the word believe in it.

 

[jphilapy]

it means that I can be assured that Paul is sent by God

AND

following the Bereans’ example would only make us more noble, but I think the validating miracles would be the clincher

I think you still need to test his teaching. The OT didn’t think miracles were the clincher.

Deu 13:1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,
Deu 13:2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
Deu 13:3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

Tis like the doctrine of the Trinity…logically derived from what we have, but not spelt out in detail by God.

You know I am catholic. I believe that the church is guided by the Spirit of God and thus believe that the doctrine of the trinity was defined under His guidance. Are you saying the doctrine of Sola Scriptura was defined as the result of the Holy Spirit’s guidance?

Trinity is taught by implication in scripture. Sola Scriptura is not as you yourself have already agreed. So this gets back to what (or who’s) authority does SS come from?

 

[jphilapy]

Neither do I. But I suppose it isn’t impossible.

Well if you mean some guy on a desert island with a bible… then sure what other choice does he have? But if he truly follows scripture then he would have to admit that nobody in scripture ever practiced sola scriptura.

And then there is Adam. I mean Adam didn’t have an interpretive authority or scripture. He was sola-deus (I am sure I just murdered latin.). What about the other jewish fathers who heard from God directly? They had God directly and Tradition. Obviously that wasn’t to continue as the norm as scripture shows us.

SS is not logical, simply on the basis that God shows us His way of authority in scripture and sola scriptura is not it.

 

[Bluegoat]

Well if you mean some guy on a desert island with a bible… then sure what other choice does he have? But if he truly follows scripture then he would have to admit that nobody in scripture ever practiced sola scriptura.

And then there is Adam. I mean Adam didn’t have an interpretive authority or scripture. He was sola-deus (I am sure I just murdered latin.). What about the other jewish fathers who heard from God directly? They had God directly and Tradition. Obviously that wasn’t to continue as the norm as scripture shows us.

SS is not logical, simply on the basis that God shows us His way of authority in scripture and sola scriptura is not it.

I have never heard sola scriptura applied to the OT - and especially to pre-Biblical characters.

Most times it seems to be understood that the Holy Spirit protected the early church’s teachings until about the time that the Scriptures were put together and accepted, and after that they became the grounding point for authority. There is more to it, but that is the basic gist. And there are problems with it of course, and it seems very complicated to me.

But what the OT followers or very early Christians did is not really that big of a deal for people who support that viewpoint.

 

[JonNC]

=jphilapy;7250203]Jon,
I don’t know where you get the idea “Sola scriptura is not a doctrine. It is a practice.” The word doctrine means teaching and goes hand in hand with practice. Sola scriptura is a doctrine and the use of scripture as your sole authority is the practice.

Well, I have not been taught that sola scriptura is a doctrine. Perhaps you have other information.

Sola scriptura does not mean “an appropriate norm by which to hold teachers and teachings accountable, in the post apostolic era.”. Even the Catholic Church does that.

Sola Scriptura means it is the only norm to hold them accountable to. hence the word Sola which is latin for alone.

It is also appropriate. And yes, it is the final norm.

" I don’t “believe” sola scriptura."
You believe that scripture alone is the ultimate authority right? If so then you do believe it. Try saying “I believe scripture alone is my ultimate authority” without the word believe in it.

I believe that scripture is the final norm. I don’t “believe in it” in that I believe in, well, see the creeds. In addition, I don’t believe that Catholics for example, are condemned because they don’t practice it.

Jon

 

[jphilapy]

Well, I have not been taught that sola scriptura is a doctrine. Perhaps you have other information.

As I said doctrine means teaching. So if you are teaching me the definition of sola scriptura, then are you not teaching me a doctrine?

And yes protestants believe that you have to believe it. many many times have I listened to protestant preachers preach from the pulpit that scripture is our only authority. I know because I professed it as such till I realized that scripture tells us who our authority is, and it isn’t scripture alone.

 

[jphilapy]

Well, I have not been taught that sola scriptura is a doctrine. Perhaps you have other information.

So are you functioning on someone else’s authority as if it was from God rather than checking it in scripture? How is that practicing scripture as your final authority? If scripture is truly your final authority then you believe it when it says it isnt.

 

[BTTG]

So are you functioning on someone else’s authority as if it was from God rather than checking it in scripture? How is that practicing scripture as your final authority? If scripture is truly your final authority then you believe it when it says it isnt.

Would you let me know where does it say in scripture that scripture is not the final authority?

thank you

written with love

 

[Radical]

AND

you need more? why?

I think you still need to test his teaching. The OT didn’t think miracles were the clincher.

It didn’t? How did God convince Moses? How did Moses convince Pharaoh? How did God signal his approval of Moses and disapproval of Korah? How did God prove he was superior to Baal in 1 Kings 18? The list could go on and on…but in any event, I live in Galatia under the new covenant and I have encountered the preaching of Paul and so my response is likely as described in the NT:

*So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders.(Acts 14:3 NIV)

This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. 4 God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.(Heb 2 NIV)

…the whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me. 14 Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written: 16 " ‘After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, 17 that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things’ (Acts 15 NIV)*

So I’ll be a Berean-type and search the OT and find confirmation of Paul’s message as they also did (and as James did in Acts 15), but I will also note that Paul’s miracles confirm his message as plainly stated in Acts 14 and Hebrews 2. That, with God’s grace would be good enough for me…what about for you?

Are you saying the doctrine of Sola Scriptura was defined as the result of the Holy Spirit’s guidance?

I have no doubt the the Spirit contributed to the Reformation, but the idea that scripture is the only reliable source for God’s revelation seems extremely obvious (IMHO) given the level of corruption evident in the other sources that have been suggested as possible candidates.

 

[jphilapy]

Would you let me know where does it say in scripture that scripture is not the final authority?

thank you

written with love

The teaching that scripture is the final authority means that if it is not found in scripture then you don’t have to believe it. There for since sola scriptura is not found in scriputure, you are not required to believe it.

But if you want evidence from scripture:

1. The christians didn’t have the NT writings. They were required to submit to the church for their teaching. Obviously they were not practicing SS.
2. Everything that the apostles taught was not contained in the OT scripture.

So why would you prefer Sola Scriptura rather than the authority of the church that we find described in scripture?

 

[jphilapy]

you need more? why?

It didn’t? How did God convince Moses? How did Moses convince Pharaoh? How did God signal his approval of Moses and disapproval of Korah? How did God prove he was superior to Baal in 1 Kings 18? The list could go on and on…but in any event, I live in Galatia under the new covenant and I have encountered the preaching of Paul and so my response is likely as described in the NT:

*So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders.(Acts 14:3 NIV)

This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. 4 God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.(Heb 2 NIV)

…the whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me. 14 Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written: 16 " ‘After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, 17 that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things’ (Acts 15 NIV)*

So I’ll be a Berean-type and search the OT and find confirmation of Paul’s message as they also did (and as James did in Acts 15), but I will also note that Paul’s miracles confirm his message as plainly stated in Acts 14 and Hebrews 2. That, with God’s grace would be good enough for me…what about for you?

You state your argument as if I disagreed with your points. So what did you say here that is different than what I said? I said you need more than miracles to test a person. You need to test their teaching. After your examples of the people believing the miracles you refer to being a berean to test their teaching. So you agree that there is more than accepting the miracles?

Perhaps you are point to the fact that people believe based on miracles alone? So what if people believe based on miracles alone. That does not validate the person as being from God. If so then how, when scripture is clear that miracles alone do not prove one as coming from God?

I have no doubt the the Spirit contributed to the Reformation, but the idea that scripture is the only reliable source for God’s revelation seems extremely obvious (IMHO) given the level of corruption evident in the other sources that have been suggested as possible candidates.

Well it really doesnt matter if you or I think that none of the other authorities qualify as an equal authority to scripture. The fact is scripture does not teach sola scriptura. Which means by definition it is false. The best you can argue is that there is currently no other authority. But you cannot argue that scripture is the only authority. Why? Just because you don’t recognize any other authority, does not make it true that there is no other authority. Unless you think your recognition is that final authority? If God said there is no other authority than scripture, than you have a point. However since it is not His practice to ever establish scripture as final authority, than on what basis do your or I have to believe some thing that is different than what God does do?

 

[Roy5]

There are many things in the New Testament that supercede the old. Reread the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus says: “Ye hbave heard it said…but I say unto you.” Remember how Jesus broke the Sabbath law and declared that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. Etc.

How do Catholics deal with the role of Paul, the great evangelist who wrote many letters advising early Christians on spiritual, doctrinal and disciplinary matters, yet never once mentions Mary? 

Both Protestants and Catholics have difficulties if scripture is the standard. Besides, why does the Church today have to abide by cultural and other traditions of the first century? As I recall, Paul said that women should be silent in the churches, but I hear them read scripture regularly at Mass and Protestants have thousands of women ministers.

 We need a bigger tent that permits Christians to hold different views and still "live in love and charity" with one another. Nothing trumps the Golden Rule or Paul's 13th chapter of I Corinthians. Love and not petty rules and regulations are the core of the mesage of Christ.

 

[Wordster]

Both Protestants and Catholics have difficulties if scripture is the standard.

[SIGN]

DYNAMITE statement! [/SIGN]I hesitate to add anything else, since the SS theme has been flogged to…well, mincemeat, shall we say, here at this forum, but the fact of the matter is that Scripture is the “bottom line.” That doesn’t mean that each person becomes their own mini-Pope (we learn from each other, after all), but simply, that if church X preaches that unless you believe Doctrine Y, you will miss out on heaven, and yet Doctrine Y flies in the face of Scripture, well, then, that’s when SS kicks in. Jesus consistently taught the principle of the primacy of Scripture over any kind of manmade teachings/practices. How do we then presume to override that?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

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?

First of all the Old Testament doesn’t teach that a gentile needs to be circumcised, so there’s no conflict here. (Which I think you point out?) If I were a Jew, then the argument would be moot since I would already be circumcised.

Second, note how Paul argues his case in Galatians. He doesn’t say, “here’s what I think—and you have to follow what I say because I’m an apostle.” Actually, he’s in conflict with other apostles–so invoking apostolic authority really isn’t going to help him; Peter and James are going to trump him. What he does do is construct a pretty sophisticated argument based on scripture, primarily using the figure of Abraham. Like the actual Galatians, I’d probably have to consider whether his argument was convincing or not.

Third, I think you may have misunderstood the whole idea of sola scriptura (your point #2 is irrelevant, actually)—but the situation you’re describing in Galatia roughly shows how sola scriptura works. Paul was not teaching something contrary to scripture, however, the “party of James” was (that gentiles had to be circumcised). Paul argues his case positively, again from scripture, to help resolve the problem.

I think maybe something else from the NT might help you get your point across better, I’m not sure.

 

[Radical]

You state your argument as if I disagreed with your points. So what did you say here that is different than what I said? I said you need more than miracles to test a person. You need to test their teaching.

well, if I am a first century Gentile Galatian I might not have the OT as scripture…so it might just be Paul’s message plus miracles that convince me…or like, the Bereans I might have scripture plus Paul’s message plus miraculous confirmation…

So what if people believe based on miracles alone. That does not validate the person as being from God.

It is sure a lot better than having no miracles in support of that validation, now isn’t it?

Well it really doesnt matter if you or I think that none of the other authorities qualify as an equal authority to scripture.

sure it does…cuz the question for us is, “Where can we find God’s Revelation reliably presented?”

The fact is scripture does not teach sola scriptura. Which means by definition it is false.

no, it means that I wouldn’t support your definition of SS

The best you can argue is that there is currently no other authority.

it is the sad truth that there exists no other reliable authority

But you cannot argue that scripture is the only authority. Why?

well, b/c that is not my position for starters…note my repeated use of reliable…it is kinda important to my view

Just because you don’t recognize any other authority, does not make it true that there is no other authority.

first let’s correct that to read: Just because you don’t recognize any other authority as reliable, does not make it true that there is no other reliable authority.

Right…I am not infallible…no human ever was and no human ever will be.

If God said there is no other authority than scripture, than you have a point.

yeah, but if it was in scripture, then you would protest that it was circular and if it wasn’t in scripture, then you would say it defeats scripture as the sole reliable authority

However since it is not His practice to ever establish scripture as final authority, than on what basis do your or I have to believe some thing that is different than what God does do?

It was Christ’s and Paul’s practice to repeatedly argue from scripture…presenting it as a reliable source for God’s revelation. What other reliable source was established by their practice and how?

 

[jphilapy]

First of all the Old Testament doesn’t teach that a gentile needs to be circumcised, so there’s no conflict here. (Which I think you point out?) If I were a Jew, then the argument would be moot since I would already be circumcised.

gentiles:
Exo 12:48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.
Exo 12:49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

jews: You are right in that the jews would have been circumcised. However if they have children, according to Paul’s teaching, they do not need to get them circumcised. Consider also: 1Co 7:18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.

Recall that in acts 15 there is the conflict between Paul and the jews teaching circumcision. The pro circumcision position was of course, according to ot scripture. Notice how they settled the matter in acts 15? It wasn’t on Paul’s word alone and it wasn’t on scripture alone. Pretty clear if you ask me.

Second, note how Paul argues his case in Galatians. He doesn’t say, “here’s what I think—and you have to follow what I say because I’m an apostle.” Actually, he’s in conflict with other apostles–so invoking apostolic authority really isn’t going to help him; Peter and James are going to trump him. What he does do is construct a pretty sophisticated argument based on scripture, primarily using the figure of Abraham. Like the actual Galatians, I’d probably have to consider whether his argument was convincing or not.

Well just to be clear, it wasn’t a disagreement over teaching it was over hypocrisy. Gal 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

Paul didn’t need to construct a sophisticated argument, simply because Peter was in agreement with him already. They settled the issue in acts 15.

Third, I think you may have misunderstood the whole idea of sola scriptura (your point #2 is irrelevant, actually)—but the situation you’re describing in Galatia roughly shows how sola scriptura works. Paul was not teaching something contrary to scripture, however, the “party of James” was (that gentiles had to be circumcised). Paul argues his case positively, again from scripture, to help resolve the problem.

I think maybe something else from the NT might help you get your point across better, I’m not sure.

How have I misunderstood SS? SS does not mean, to argue from scripture or to use scripture as your support. It means scripture is your only authority. Since the apostles authority is equal to the OT scripture of that day, Paul would be contradicting himself by arguing that scripture was the only authority. Don’t you think?

 

[jmcrae]

First of all the Old Testament doesn’t teach that a gentile needs to be circumcised, so there’s no conflict here. (Which I think you point out?) If I were a Jew, then the argument would be moot since I would already be circumcised.

It doesn’t teach that a gentile has to be circumcised to remain a gentile - but if he wants to become Jewish, he has to be circumcised.

Prior to the Council of Jerusalem, Christianity was a subset of Judaism.

It was only after they decreed that the Gentiles don’t have to be circumcised, that Christianity began the process of becoming a distinctly separate religion.

This process of separation took about forty years or so, ending in 90 AD, when the Temple authorities made the final excommunication of Christian believers from Judaism, and outlawed their writings (what was later to become the New Testament and related writings).

 

[Mojoforyeshua]

2 Timothy 3:16 (New International Version)

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

The bible says that scripture is useful (not the soul source of faith but that would be circular logic if it did.)

However, it does point to something else as the pillar and foundation of truth
1 Timothy 3:15 (New International Version)

15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household,*** which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. ***

One of the first reasons why I started moving towards the Catholic Church, Sola scriptura holds no water even in Scripture.

Peace,
John