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

[Erich]

2 Timothy 3:16 (New International Version)

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness
…
One of the first reasons why I started moving towards the Catholic Church, Sola scriptura holds no water even in Scripture.

The following verse is important also:

17 that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Note that these words were written to St. Timothy specifically, not to the congregation in general.

Yes, the Scriptures are a tool for “teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,” but who is to use this tool for these purposes? That is, who has the authority to teach, reproof, correct, and train others in righteousness? The “man of God” has this authority.

But, who is the “man of God?” Contrary to the opinion that the “man of God” can be any Christian without distinction, Scripture itself will not allow such an interpretation, insisting that the “man of God” is a figure of authority, either commissioned by God directly through Divine Intervention (such as Moses or the Angel), or appointed by another holder of authority (such as Samuel, David, Elisha, and St. Timothy).

My questions to Radical (in post #16 of this thread) remain unanswered:

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?

 

[JonNC]

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.

And which type protestant were you?
From an Anglican.

But in fact, the argument should be of the form:

(1) Sola Scriptura = “All truths necessary to salvation are stated in Holy Scripture.”
(2) Sola Scriptura is not stated in Holy Scripture.
(3) Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not a truth necessary to salvation.

And to this conclusion I, for one, have no objection. I cheerfully look forward to seeing many of my Roman Catholic friends in Heaven, despite their regrettable error in holding certain propositions to be true, and their still more regrettable error in holding them to be essential parts of the Catholic faith. My comments on Line (2) of the argument appear below.

angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.kiefersolascriptura.html

So, like the writer, I would disagree with the Protestants that claim that believing in sola scriptura is some requirement for salvation.

Jon

 

[jphilapy]

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…

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

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 why would you want to follow the line of argument? Do you want people to believe anyone who does signs and wonders? If both true and false prophets do them, then how are people supposed to know who is and isn’t of God?

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

Of course, it is in the church that He founded as well as the scripture they wrote. Does the individual’s private interpretation pass the test of being reliable?

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

Ok so you should clear this up for me. Which is it you don’t agree with ? Is it that scripture is not your only infallible authority for faith and practice? Or is it that sola scriptura is an issue of faith/practice?

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

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

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.

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

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

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?

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

I agree i would. Apparently God agrees to.

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?

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.

 

[jphilapy]

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.

You are right in one sense. From the jews perspective Jesus broke the sabbath law but from His, He being God and all, did not break it. He was showing them the correct way to keep it.

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?

Catholics don’t hold to Sola Scripture (Scripture Alone). The church wrote scripture. That same church is here today.

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

Protestants have difficulty. They have the problem of why they interpret scripture differently than those who were taught by the apostles.

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.

Perhaps you should do a study to find out exactly what Paul meant?

 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.

So do you think that Jesus practiced the big tent theory?
Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

I am just saying He didn’t say ‘I am the way, a truth of many truths’.

If the head didn’t do it, then why should the body be expected to do it?

 

[jphilapy]

And which type protestant were you?
From an Anglican.

Nope. leaned strong to the reformed view.

angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.kiefersolascriptura.html

So, like the writer, I would disagree with the Protestants that claim that believing in sola scriptura is some requirement for salvation.
Jon

Do you believe it is an issue of obedience? I mean if it is truly from God, then shouldn’t you be required to believe it?

 

[JonNC]

=jphilapy;7253195]Nope. leaned strong to the reformed view.

Sorry, the “from an Anglican” was in reference to the cite I posted, not you. I see a vast difference in thinking between what I was taught as a Lutheran, and the Calvinist TULIP point of view, on a lot of issues.

Do you believe it is an issue of obedience? I mean if it is truly from God, then shouldn’t you be required to believe it?

To what do you refer to by, “an issue of obedience”? Of course I believe scripture. That’s why Lutherans view it as the final norm, to hold all teachers and teachings, including The Book of Concord, by the way, accountable to it.

Jon

 

[jphilapy]

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?

over man made practices, yes. But he also established a church that is led by the same Spirit that inspired scripture. Anyway to override that?

 

[jphilapy]

Sorry, the “from an Anglican” was in reference to the cite I posted, not you. I see a vast difference in thinking between what I was taught as a Lutheran, and the Calvinist TULIP point of view, on a lot of issues.

You mean a diff between calving and luther?

To what do you refer to by, “an issue of obedience”? Of course I believe scripture. That’s why Lutherans view it as the final norm, to hold all teachers and teachings, including The Book of Concord, by the way, accountable to it.

Jon

I didn’t ask if you believe scripture. I asked if scripture being the final authority is an issue of obedience. If a person does not view it as, in your words, the final norm, then are they in disobedience to God?

 

[JonNC]

=jphilapy;7253260]You mean a diff between calving and luther?

Yes, or more generally, Lutheranism and Calvinism. I would be Catholic long before being Calvinist.

I didn’t ask if you believe scripture. I asked if scripture being the final authority is an issue of obedience. If a person does not view it as, in your words, the final norm, then are they in disobedience to God?

I don’t see it that way, any more than I see the hermuenitics practice of the Catholic Church as being “disobedient to God”.

Jon

 

[Dave_Noonan]

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.

You’re applying specific Passover legislation to the general issue of circumcision, with the “ger” being a sort of intermediary category–a resident alien. Even if the point were germane, foreigners (e.g., gentiles outside the land of Israel) are not part of Israel, and are not allowed to each the Passover (Ex. 12:43). In a broader sense though, there’s nothing in the OT encouraging those outside of Israel to be circumcised. The Israelites were not out to circumcise all the males in the world. The law was given to Israel and applied to Israelites.

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.

Like the Corinthians, the Galatians were primarily gentiles. Paul wanted to discourage the circumcision of gentiles because of its theological implications. Certainly this would have been an issue for Jews though, which is probably one of the reasons Paul believes it’s a pressing problem.

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.

Disagree because of above. The Israelites didn’t think that every male in the world needed to be circumcised.

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.

But he did construct a scriptural argument to counter the followers of James from Jerusalem. He’s not relying on his own authority as an apostle. I’d say Paul’s argument from Scripture in Galatians is pretty sophisticated–clever, even.

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?

Sola scriptura does not mean that scripture is the only divine authority. What it does mean is that IF a doctrine or practice can be shown as contrary to scripture (interpreted via reason), then scripture trumps that other source. You’re confusing sola scriptura with a sort of evangelical, “Bible only,” or Christian fundamentalist approach. Sometimes Catholic apologists refer to this as solO scriptura, if that’s helpful. (I’m not sure it is.)

 

[jphilapy]

Yes, or more generally, Lutheranism and Calvinism. I would be Catholic long before being Calvinist.

I always thought Calvin made more sense than Luther. CORRECTION: I didn’t really think he made more sense. More properly I thought Calvin explained his position better.

I don’t see it that way, any more than I see the hermuenitics practice of the Catholic Church as being “disobedient to God”.

Jon

But if it is God’s revelation, then what right do we have to reject it? God’s revelation of what our authority is, is optional? I mean we can choose to believe what we want about it?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

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).

I don’t know of any current scholars who would agree with this. You might want to take a look at: amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_3_19?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=borderlines+boyarin&sprefix=borderlines+boyarin

 

[jphilapy]

You’re applying specific Passover legislation to the general issue of circumcision, with the “ger” being a sort of intermediary category–a resident alien. Even if the point were germane, foreigners (e.g., gentiles outside the land of Israel) are not part of Israel, and are not allowed to each the Passover (Ex. 12:43). In a broader sense though, there’s nothing in the OT encouraging those outside of Israel to be circumcised. The Israelites were not out to circumcise all the males in the world. The law was given to Israel and applied to Israelites.

I thought the verse I gave was pretty clear, it did say the uncircumcised and it did call them strangers.

You said above “The law was given to Israel and applied to Israelites.” and any gentile who wanted to partake of judaism. To this day judaism is still accepting converts.

Like the Corinthians, the Galatians were primarily gentiles. Paul wanted to discourage the circumcision of gentiles because of its theological implications. Certainly this would have been an issue for Jews though, which is probably one of the reasons Paul believes it’s a pressing problem.

Disagree because of above. The Israelites didn’t think that every male in the world needed to be circumcised.

I don’t know why it is relevant what they jews thought about the whole entire world. What matters is what they thought about those who wished to join them.

But he did construct a scriptural argument to counter the followers of James from Jerusalem. He’s not relying on his own authority as an apostle. I’d say Paul’s argument from Scripture in Galatians is pretty sophisticated–clever, even.

Yes his argument was sophisticated, but where does it say he was writing it to counter James or Peter? It doesn’t. And where does it say those specific jews are followers of James? For all we know, James sent them not realizing their position on circumcision.

Sola scriptura does not mean that scripture is the only divine authority. What it does mean is that IF a doctrine or practice can be shown as contrary to scripture (interpreted via reason), then scripture trumps that other source. You’re confusing sola scriptura with a sort of evangelical, “Bible only,” or Christian fundamentalist approach. Sometimes Catholic apologists refer to this as solO scriptura, if that’s helpful. (I’m not sure it is.)

Here is the protestant definition of Sola Scriptura :
the Word of God, contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only infallible rule of faith and practice.

Notice the word only? Sola means alone. What did you think sola meant?

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t know of any current scholars who would agree with this. You might want to take a look at: amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_3_19?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=borderlines+boyarin&sprefix=borderlines+boyarin

Why would there have been any controversy at all, if the Jews did not require converts to become circumcised?

 

[JonNC]

=jphilapy;7253367]I always thought Calvin made more sense than Luther. CORRECTION: I didn’t really think he made more sense. More properly I thought Calvin explained his position better.

Explanation or not, I can’t get past limited atonement, perseverence of saints, etc, not to mention symbolic Eucharist.

But if it is God’s revelation, then what right do we have to reject it? God’s revelation of what our authority is, is optional? I mean we can choose to believe what we want about it?

Scripture is God’s revelation. If Catholic doctrine conforms to scripture, which Catholics say it does, then how is the method of hermeneutics more than just besides the point? Lutherans and Catholics agree on probably 85 -90% of things. We agree on this first six early councils, the creeds, etc. And we come to agreement using different practices of hermeneutics. How can I, in all honesty, condemn Catholics under these conditions, that they view Tradition equal to scripture?

Jon

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Why would there have been any controversy at all, if the Jews did not require converts to become circumcised?

Some Jews thought they should be (the party of James) and others not (Paul). Paul is upset because the party of James is introducing an innovation to the Gospel that he has already preached at Galatia.

 

[jmcrae]

Some Jews thought they should be (the party of James) and others not (Paul). Paul is upset because the party of James is introducing an innovation to the Gospel that he has already preached at Galatia.

James was also in favour of admitting the Gentiles without circumcision, so I’m not sure where you’re getting this from.

Paul is building on the teaching of Peter; not on anything to do with the Old Testament or the Law. Paul recognizes Peter’s authority as being above all others, since he was appointed by Christ to be the chief shepherd of the Church, and defends Peter’s teaching, even though it is contrary to both the Law and the Prophets.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I thought the verse I gave was pretty clear, it did say the uncircumcised and it did call them strangers.

As I noted, this is legislation about eating the Passover and only applies only to a specific group of people, the “gerim” (resident aliens living in Israel). Foreigners cannot participate in the Passover. Galatians would have been foreigners under Israelite law.

You said above “The law was given to Israel and applied to Israelites.” and any gentile who wanted to partake of judaism. To this day judaism is still accepting converts.

The point is, the followers of Jesus were not becoming Jews–this is what Peter was preaching and, conversely, what Paul is so upset about! (Gal 2:14)

I don’t know why it is relevant what they jews thought about the whole entire world. What matters is what they thought about those who wished to join them.

That’s the whole point of Paul’s letter to the Galatians. The followers of Jesus are not under the Jewish law because they are not becoming Jews. The Galatians are gentiles, not Jews.

Yes his argument was sophisticated, but where does it say he was writing it to counter James or Peter? It doesn’t. And where does it say those specific jews are followers of James? For all we know, James sent them not realizing their position on circumcision.

See Gal 2:12-14. We only have the express views of Peter (in the mouth of Paul)–Paul rebuked Peter because he was compelling gentiles to live as Jews–which to Paul is a pretty crazy notion.

About the party of James all we know is that “they came from James.” I think it would be logical that those who “came from James” agreed with James, but that’s certainly up to you.

Here is the protestant definition of Sola Scriptura :
the Word of God, contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only infallible rule of faith and practice.

Notice the word only? Sola means alone. What did you think sola meant?

There is no “THE Protestant definition” of anything, Protestantism being very diverse in belief and practice. Sola scriptura means “by Scripture alone.” Solo scriptura means “only scripture.” (Again, this is a distinction that Catholic apologists make to help distinguish between these views–it may or may not be helpful to you. I’m sure you can search on this site to get more info about the difference.)

Sola scriptura is at best a hermeneutical method and at worst, a religious slogan. But I think it is best understood in seeing how the method was applied in context. For example, when controversy developed over infant baptism during the Reformation, Luther argued that that: 1) there is nothing in the Bible prohibiting infant baptism 2) it is logical that God would want infants to receive grace and that infant baptism is pleasing to God 3) that it has always been part of church tradition. Thus, you keep on baptizing infants. (There’s a large section in this in Luther’s Large Catechism, which I’m sure is available on line.) The principle of sola scriptura is NOT that you have to find support in the Bible for everything, but that you first look at whether what you are doing/proposing/advocating is contrary to scripture. Scripture may indeed be the final arbiter, but it is not the only source.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

James was also in favour of admitting the Gentiles without circumcision, so I’m not sure where you’re getting this from.

Paul is building on the teaching of Peter; not on anything to do with the Old Testament or the Law. Paul recognizes Peter’s authority as being above all others, since he was appointed by Christ to be the chief shepherd of the Church, and defends Peter’s teaching, even though it is contrary to both the Law and the Prophets.

Actually Paul disagrees with Peter–take a look at Galatians 2. Paul met with the pillars of the church of Jerusalem where they agreed that Paul would be the apostle to the uncircumcised and Peter to the circumcised (2:7-9). Out of fear of the people who “came from James” who are the “circumcision faction” (2:12) Peter flip-flops on his prior position, which makes Paul angry.

 

[jmcrae]

Actually Paul disagrees with Peter–take a look at Galatians 2. Paul met with the pillars of the church of Jerusalem where they agreed that Paul would be the apostle to the uncircumcised and Peter to the circumcised (2:7-9). Out of fear of the people who “came from James” who are the “circumcision faction” (2:12) Peter flip-flops on his prior position, which makes Paul angry.

No, he doesn’t “flip-flop” on his position - he acts contrary to his plainly stated teaching. There is a huge distinction. In any case, James was in favour of accepting the Gentiles without circumcision, as we see at the end of Acts 15.