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

[Izdaari]

Well… I couldn’t actually be a Protestant in that time period, unless I were a time traveler. Protestants and Catholics hadn’t been invented yet. But I have no problem with Peter, Paul and the other Apostles having apostolic authority: they were legitimately Apostles, and they wrote most of the NT Scriptures. Whether passing that authority on down though a line of successors is how the church is supposed to work, that’s yet another story.

 

[jphilapy]

So if you claim Sola Scriptura is “unBiblical” may I ask you what your standard for “unBiblical” is?

Well for the sake of clarity, I didn’t say it is unbiblical. I said “Sola Scriptura does not have it’s basis in scripture.”

What I mean by that is, it is not taught as a doctrine and it was never practiced. That means one can never appeal to scripture to support that doctrine. Since it is not in scripture you :
a) Are not obligated to confess or believe it.
b) Have no authority to obligate anyone else to confess or believe it.

In order to be obligated or to obligate others, you would need to find it in scripture.

 

[jphilapy]

Well… I couldn’t actually be a Protestant in that time period, unless I were a time traveler. Protestants and Catholics hadn’t been invented yet. But I have no problem with Peter, Paul and the other Apostles having apostolic authority: they were legitimately Apostles, and they wrote most of the NT Scriptures. Whether passing that authority on down though a line of successors is how the church is supposed to work, that’s yet another story.

Since you admit they didn’t teach or practice sola scriptura, then what authority does sola scriptura come from?

 

[AmateurPianist]

Well for the sake of clarity, I didn’t say it is unbiblical. I said “Sola Scriptura does not have it’s basis in scripture.”

What I mean by that is, it is not taught as a doctrine and it was never practiced. That means one can never appeal to scripture to support that doctrine. Since it is not in scripture you :
a) Are not obligated to confess or believe it.
b) Have no authority to obligate anyone else to confess or believe it.

In order to be obligated or to obligate others, you would need to find it in scripture.

Does that same standard apply to say “the assumption of Mary”?

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Return to the topic.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Return to the topic.

OK then I retract this line of questioning (more out of my curiousity more than anything else)…

So to answer the question…the answer by Izdaari a few posts up works for me too.

 

[jphilapy]

Does that same standard apply to say “the assumption of Mary”?

Keep in mind that we are talking about the principle of sola scriptura. That principle requires the protestant to get all his teachings from scripture. As a catholic, I am not required to. So it would not make any sense to bind me to a principle which I am not supporting. I don’t need to prove distinctive that protestants support. Perhaps you are still not clear on the catholic position, if not then I will be glad to explain further.

So what authority does sola scriptura come from if not from scripture?

 

[Radical]

Moses was face to face with God. What kind of test does he need?

In Ex 3 Moses is given a sign. In Ex 4 God gives more miraculous signs for Moses to show the Israelites so that they may believe. This is the way God worked on that occasion…if it troubles you, then perhaps it is something that you should discuss with your priest. It seems that you think that the Israelites should have responded by disregarding Moses’s miracles on the basis that he might have been just a better sorcerer than the ones that attended Pharaoh’s court.

“One isn’t going to be able to prove (by objective standards) that someone is presenting a message from God.”
This certainly undercuts your argument for Scripture as a modern day test.

How so? I am not going to be able to prove to an agnostic or other non-Christian that our scriptures are a reliable record of God’s revelation…but in a discussion between you and me I don’t have that burden. We both agree that scriptures are such a reliable record. You want to assert that Sacred Tradition (ST) is also a reliable record. I want to assert that scripture is the only such reliable record that we currently possess. Please note that my assertion isn’t that scripture is the only such reliable record and has always been the only such reliable record. That is why the scenario presented in your OP really doesn’t address the difference between our two assertions. To prove my assertion, all that I need to demonstrate is that the other candidate that you put forward (namely ST or the CC) isn’t reliable. To prove your assertion, all that you need to demonstrate is that ST is 1) reliable and 2) a record of God’s revelation. There is no need for either of us to make the effort to establish what is common ground between us…to get to the “only” there should be no need for me to prove to you that the Book of Mormon isn’t a reliable record of God’s revelation. If you care to declare that the scriptures are not a reliable record of God’s revelation, then please advise immediately, otherwise I will simply accept your admission .

Miracles being the ultimate test fails you since you werent really in the first century, and you didn’t really see the apostles do miracles. So on what basis do you believe scripture since you don’t have any miracles to validate it?

faith…I guess we have now abandoned the OP scenario (b/c it really served no purpose)?

Actually you did provide an argument. you said there is no other reliable authority.

I’d call that an assertion

Everything the Pope says or writes does not have to be believed either. We still have to test it. However you have undercut yourself testing the apostles teaching when you insist that you as a first century believer would follow everything he says on the basis that he did miracles.

when did I insist that I would follow everything Paul said?..I have no problem with anything that we have remaining (from what Paul said), but that doesn’t mean that I would necessarily follow everything Paul said. In fact we limit some of what Paul said to his culture and circumstances. Further, it is very possible that Paul got confused when preaching and thought an OT passage taught something that it didn’t…and if so, I would have attempted to correct him. If he persisted on that interpretation I would have asked him if it was merely his opinion or whether his interpretation was a result of revelation. If only his opinion, then I would have disagreed.

If not, then you need some kind of test to excuse you from following everything, including error.

why not just ask him…or do what the Bereans did?

You just undercut yourself again. So if false teachers can do miracles and teach false doctrine and that invalidates the church as a reliable source,…

I don’t recall saying that was what invalidated the church as a reliable source. I look at the history of the Catholic Church and it screams out “unreliable”…IMHO the reliability that it claims for itself is achieved by 1) designating any unacceptable teaching as unofficial; 2) re-interpreting any questionable teaching into a more acceptable form; 3) resorting to forced (and self-serving) interpretations of the scriptures and ECFs to support claims and eliminate issues; and 4) claiming innovations are mere developments (even in the absence of evidence of a original teaching from which the “development” could have occurred ).

… then the scriptures you tout as reliable could very well have come from an unreliable source. And could have very well been compiled by an unreliable source.

authorship, preservation and canonization was all done by fallible men…if the scriptures are more than just the words of devout and wise men, then it has everything to do with God’s involvement…and, as I said God uses fallible men

 

[jphilapy]

In Ex 3 Moses is given a sign. In Ex 4 God gives more miraculous signs for Moses to show the Israelites so that they may believe. This is the way God worked on that occasion…if it troubles you, then perhaps it is something that you should discuss with your priest. It seems that you think that the Israelites should have responded by disregarding Moses’s miracles on the basis that he might have been just a better sorcerer than the ones that attended Pharaoh’s court.

What you are not including here is the fact that Moses is a Jew, the Jews were all raised with a tradition that they can compare Moses to. So no,they were not accepting him on the basis of his miracles alone.

How so? I am not going to be able to prove to an agnostic or other non-Christian that our scriptures are a reliable record of God’s revelation…but in a discussion between you and me I don’t have that burden.

I think you are confusing them believing something with you proving it. Sure they may not accept your proof, but that doesn’t mean you didn’t prove it.

faith…I guess we have now abandoned the OP scenario (b/c it really served no purpose)?

Not abandoning the OP scenario. Just pointing out the inconsistency of your argument. You have to base your acceptance of Paul on other criteria which is the same critera that you would need to apply if you were actually in the first century.

I’d call that an assertion

Ok so half of an argument. That would be an assertion un-accompanied by reasons.

when did I insist that I would follow everything Paul said?..I have no problem with anything that we have remaining (from what Paul said), but that doesn’t mean that I would necessarily follow everything Paul said. In fact we limit some of what Paul said to his culture and circumstances. Further, it is very possible that Paul got confused when preaching and thought an OT passage taught something that it didn’t…and if so, I would have attempted to correct him. If he persisted on that interpretation I would have asked him if it was merely his opinion or whether his interpretation was a result of revelation. If only his opinion, then I would have disagreed.

you insisted when you keep argueing about how you only need miracles. The op is how would you test Paul’s teaching. Are you now changing your position to say that you need a way to test Paul’s teaching other than miracles to make sure it is not in error? Or are you trying to argue that Paul cannot err in faith and morals?

=====================================================================

authorship, preservation and canonization was all done by fallible men…if the scriptures are more than just the words of devout and wise men, then it has everything to do with God’s involvement…and, as I said God uses fallible men

We both agree that scriptures are such a reliable record. You want to assert that Sacred Tradition (ST) is also a reliable record. I want to assert that scripture is the only such reliable record that we currently possess. Please note that my assertion isn’t that scripture is the only such reliable record and has always been the only such reliable record. That is why the scenario presented in your OP really doesn’t address the difference between our two assertions. To prove my assertion, all that I need to demonstrate is that the other candidate that you put forward (namely ST or the CC) isn’t reliable. To prove your assertion, all that you need to demonstrate is that ST is 1) reliable and 2) a record of God’s revelation. There is no need for either of us to make the effort to establish what is common ground between us…to get to the “only” there should be no need for me to prove to you that the Book of Mormon isn’t a reliable record of God’s revelation. If you care to declare that the scriptures are not a reliable record of God’s revelation, then please advise immediately, otherwise I will simply accept your admission .

why not just ask him…or do what the Bereans did?
I don’t recall saying that was what invalidated the church as a reliable source. I look at the history of the Catholic Church and it screams out “unreliable”…IMHO the reliability that it claims for itself is achieved by 1) designating any unacceptable teaching as unofficial; 2) re-interpreting any questionable teaching into a more acceptable form; 3) resorting to forced (and self-serving) interpretations of the scriptures and ECFs to support claims and eliminate issues; and 4) claiming innovations are mere developments (even in the absence of evidence of a original teaching from which the “development” could have occurred ).

So if you are not arguing that the church is unreliable, then where is this reliable church at?

 

[Radical]

What you are not including here is the fact that Moses is a Jew, the Jews were all raised with a tradition that they can compare Moses to. So no,they were not accepting him on the basis of his miracles alone.

this sounds almost as if you think that there is but one way in which the HS will bring an individual to the position of belief…and that is simply not the case. The apostle Thomas wasn’t prepared to believe the other apostles unless he saw and touched his risen Lord. (A fellow, such as Thomas, is one of the reasons that God would have provided miraculous signs to confirm the message of grace as indicated in Acts 14: 3 ) The Ethiopian eunuch, on the other hand, needed something quite different. He needed Philip’s explanation of the gospel and of how OT prohecy was fulfilled in Christ. The Bereans would be similar to the Ethiopian. They must have heard much the same information as the eunuch and then believed after checking Paul’s message against OT scripture. The jailer of Acts 16 is different still. It was an earthquake coupled with the prisoners’ behavior (in not escaping) that seemed to convert him. When you ask a hypothetical question as you did in your OP, you should expect a variety of answers such as can be seen by looking at the examples in Acts.

I think you are confusing them believing something with you proving it. Sure they may not accept your proof, but that doesn’t mean you didn’t prove it.

Outside of the scientific realm “proofs” (as in how a certain historical event actually happened or as in whether the accused committed the crime) tend to be established by their ability to convince a solid majority of expert peers (in the case of history) or a judge or jury (in the case of crime or civil law) of the soundness of the explanation. I have come to the realization that we Christians cannot convince a solid majority of agnostic historians that Jesus actually rose from the dead…nor can I dismiss non-believers as irrational twits who are unable to present reasonable alternate explanations.

You have to base your acceptance of Paul on other criteria which is the same critera that you would need to apply if you were actually in the first century.

No I don’t…I am not restricted to one approach. If I was a faced with deciding whether three accused were each guilty or innocent of a crime, in one case I might be certain that the fellow was innocent b/c I have known him for years and am convinced that he could not do such a thing. With the second fellow I might be convinced that he is innocent b/c of DNA evidence and regarding the third I might know that he is innocent b/c I witnessed the crime. The same person will be convinced by different means on different occasions. Some like Thomas will believe b/c they witness a miracle. Others like the eunuch will believe b/c of a sound explanation of (already accepted) scripture. Faith is established in a variety of ways. For some the gospel message is confirmed by miracles and faith is the result. For some the gospel message is confirmed by a study of the OT and faith is the result. For others the gospel message is confirmed by the integrity of the messenger and faith is the result. Did you have something else in mind that you thought was essential? These are examples from Acts,…do you have a problem with those examples?

you insisted when you keep argueing about how you only need miracles.

that will indeed work for some…can you prove otherwise?

The op is how would you test Paul’s teaching. Are you now changing your position to say that you need a way to test Paul’s teaching other than miracles to make sure it is not in error?

miracles are but one way…by taking a very brief look at (a few chapters in) Acts I can also come up with testing against the OT scripture and believing based on the strength of the messenger’s (Paul’s) character…miracles and strength of character don’t involve “testing” (which you seem to think is necessary) but is based on an extraordinary quality possessed by Paul. Scripture is still available to us today, we can’t witness Paul’s miracles and we can get a taste of Paul’s character…Now, what was your point? How does any of this make something other than scripture a reliable source of God’s revelation?

So if you are not arguing that the church is unreliable, then where is this reliable church at?

please read more carefully…I am not arguing that your church is reliable…it isn’t…It is that you attributed the wrong reason to my argument. Perhaps I should clarify that I think that your church is somewhat reliable, but far from very reliable.

 

[jmcrae]

please read more carefully…I am not arguing that your church is reliable…it isn’t…It is that you attributed the wrong reason to my argument. Perhaps I should clarify that I think that your church is somewhat reliable, but far from very reliable.

The miracles that began with St. Paul - the curing of the sick by means of the relics of the Saints (in St. Paul’s case, it was his handkerchiefs) - continue only in the Catholic Church; we don’t find them anywhere else - and yet, despite this, you don’t believe the Church.

So, how are we to believe that the exact same miracles, done by St. Paul before he wrote any part of the New Testament, would have been convincing to you if you were around during his times (since the same miracles done by his successors don’t convince you today) - especially since most of what he taught went against the common understanding of the Scriptures that were available in those days?

 

[Radical]

The miracles that began with St. Paul - the curing of the sick by means of the relics of the Saints (in St. Paul’s case, it was his handkerchiefs) - continue only in the Catholic Church; we don’t find them anywhere else - and yet, despite this, you don’t believe the Church.

Only? Are you kidding me? Check out these healing prayer clothes . The CC hardly has the monopoly for claiming these sorts of “miracles”. The CC (and fellow believers in a real somatic presence) seems to have the monopoly for claiming Eucharistic miracles. Here are some approved by the Vatican….but note what we see. The Catholic population is far greater now than it was in the Middle Ages, but the alleged Eucharistic miracles are predominantly clustered in that time period and shortly thereafter (before the rise of science). Why is that? Why do such alleged miracles decrease in number exactly when a superstitious approach decreases in popularity?

So, how are we to believe that the exact same miracles, done by St. Paul before he wrote any part of the New Testament, would have been convincing to you if you were around during his times (since the same miracles done by his successors don’t convince you today) - especially since most of what he taught went against the common understanding of the Scriptures that were available in those days?

The same miracles are being done by his alleged successors today? Your Pope is claimed to be the successor to Peter. Why don’t you list out those miracles that the Pope has performed that are exactly the same as Peter’s or Paul’s? Paul performed miracles with great perseverance. They weren’t dodgy “miracles” like we see from Benny Hinn or in the case of the so-called Eucharistic miracles . The Pharisees, despite their desire to reject Jesus, didn’t debate whether Jesus actually pulled off a miracle or not…the matter was above debate. People, known to be blind or lame from birth, were seeing and walking. Please, show me some comparable miracles by Pope Benedict or JPII. Not only were Paul and Peter able to perform miracles, they were able to do so with considerable frequency and the miracles were preformed out in the open for any one to see…so again, where is this Catholic successor of theirs who is performing non-dodgy, frequent and public miracles with great perseverance? ….I hope you know the kind I mean, miracles that force even the non-believing opponent to acknowledge that the fellow has the gift of healing….no “ifs”, no “ands” and no “buts”.

 

[jmcrae]

Only? Are you kidding me? Check out these healing prayer clothes . The CC hardly has the monopoly for claiming these sorts of “miracles”. The CC (and fellow believers in a real somatic presence) seems to have the monopoly for claiming Eucharistic miracles. Here are some approved by the Vatican….but note what we see. The Catholic population is far greater now than it was in the Middle Ages, but the alleged Eucharistic miracles are predominantly clustered in that time period and shortly thereafter (before the rise of science). Why is that? Why do such alleged miracles decrease in number exactly when a superstitious approach decreases in popularity?

There are Eucharistic miracles going on today, all over the world - they haven’t stopped. The famous ones are more than 1,000 years old, because it is very unexpected to see these things persist for more than 1,000 years - the host at Lanciano, for example, has been bleeding at intervals for more than 1200 years, without any signs of decay.

The same miracles are being done by his alleged successors today?

Members of the Church, yes - I am talking about St. Paul (the Gentile Church) not just the Pope.

People are still walking into St. Joseph’s Oratory blind, lame, etc., and coming out well and whole, right now, today. Go there and see for yourself if you don’t believe me.

 

[Radical]

There are Eucharistic miracles going on today, all over the world - they haven’t stopped.

As I have said elsewhere, I am highly skeptical…but here is something all you faithful adherents could do for us skeptics:

1. pick the five Eucharistics miracles that enjoy the greatest confidence of Catholics;
2. run DNA tests on the flesh and blood samples from those five miracles;
3. the results should either:

a) prove to the rest of us that all the DNA samples came from a single person, a male semite to be precise; or

b) prove that the adherents are a gullible and mistaken lot (when it comes to Eucharistic miracles)

The CC didn’t seem to have a problem with having the shroud tested, so there shouldn’t be any issue wrt the principle of having alleged miracles tested scientifically

Catholics seem to be quite pleased to refer to the scientific testing that was done on some of the Eucharistic miracle samples, so there shouldn’t be an issue wrt such testing being improper as it relates to such samples (I believe the official position is that the samples are not substantially the body of Christ, but are the accidents only of such body).

There are a host of Eucharistic miracles endorsed by the Vatican ( see its exhibit ) so there should be no shortage of samples.

This could be the clincher! How could one possibly explain away a result that showed that these samples all shared the same DNA? I guess some (frothing-at-the-mouth) anti-Catholics could insist that it was Satan’s miracle, but I have to think that if the testing was controlled (such that a rigged conspirarcy could be ruled out) most Evangelicals (who deny a real bodily presence) would have to admit that such a result would pretty well prove the Catholics right. Agnostics, atheists and other non-Christians would be hard pressed to deny Catholicism (and Orthodoxy et al) their due. It could be a wonderful tool to convince people of the truth…if these miracles are legitimate.

… - the host at Lanciano, for example, has been bleeding at intervals for more than 1200 years, without any signs of decay.

great…there shouldn’t be any problem getting a good DNA result.

Members of the Church, yes - I am talking about St. Paul (the Gentile Church) not just the Pope.

well, when the apostles were given miracles to confirm their message, they were the leaders of the church…your Pope is supposed to have stepped into their sandals (Peter’s specifically). If you want to claim that the Pope is the successor of Peter then that is where we should find the continuation of Peter’s ability to do miracles (which you claim exists)…right there, out in the open, for all the world to see.

People are still walking into St. Joseph’s Oratory blind, lame, etc., and coming out well and whole, right now, today. Go there and see for yourself if you don’t believe me.

yep, irrefutable miracles…tis why la Belle Province is now more solidly and conservatively Catholic than ever before. Frankly, claims of equal veracity are made by any charismatic denomination on any day of the week…the Catholic claims IMHO are nothing special.

 

[jmcrae]

As I have said elsewhere, I am highly skeptical…but here is something all you faithful adherents could do for us skeptics:

1. pick the five Eucharistics miracles that enjoy the greatest confidence of Catholics;
2. run DNA tests on the flesh and blood samples from those five miracles;
3. the results should either:

a) prove to the rest of us that all the DNA samples came from a single person, a male semite to be precise; or

b) prove that the adherents are a gullible and mistaken lot (when it comes to Eucharistic miracles)

This has been done - the blood from all of the Eucharistic miracles matches the blood and skin from the Shroud of Turin - male, AB positive.

The CC didn’t seem to have a problem with having the shroud tested, so there shouldn’t be any issue wrt the principle of having alleged miracles tested scientifically

You’re right - there was no problem with doing it.

great…there shouldn’t be any problem getting a good DNA result.

There wasn’t.

By the way, you might be interested to know that the flesh of the Eucharist is the left valve of a male heart - we are truly surrounded in the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

 

[Radical]

This has been done - the blood from all of the Eucharistic miracles matches the blood and skin from the Shroud of Turin - male, AB positive…
There wasn’t.

two things…First, an AB blood type result is not a DNA test. Second, I doubt that the blood has been identified as AB positive…see here under the “bloodstains” section. It is these sort of excessive claims that cause the adherents to think that they have much more than what is really there.

Anyhow, I think this particular tangent has gone on enough and I will wait to see what jphilapy has to say.

Cheers, stay warm…and off the Deerfoot.

 

[jphilapy]

this sounds almost as if you think that there is but one way in which the HS will bring an individual to the position of belief…and that is simply not the case. The apostle Thomas wasn’t prepared to believe the other apostles unless he saw and touched his risen Lord. (A fellow, such as Thomas, is one of the reasons that God would have provided miraculous signs to confirm the message of grace as indicated in Acts 14: 3 ) The Ethiopian eunuch, on the other hand, needed something quite different. He needed Philip’s explanation of the gospel and of how OT prohecy was fulfilled in Christ. The Bereans would be similar to the Ethiopian. They must have heard much the same information as the eunuch and then believed after checking Paul’s message against OT scripture. The jailer of Acts 16 is different still. It was an earthquake coupled with the prisoners’ behavior (in not escaping) that seemed to convert him. When you ask a hypothetical question as you did in your OP, you should expect a variety of answers such as can be seen by looking at the examples in Acts.

People believe many things for many reasons. Some people believe in fortune tellers. Others believe in witch craft. Some believe in idols, others believe in multiple gods. And many people have doctrines that they believe were taught to them by the HS. Unless you are infallible, you need an objective way to test that it is the Holy Spirit talking to you and not just your own selfish imagination. Seems like you think people infallibly hear the Holy Spirit.

Outside of the scientific realm “proofs” (as in how a certain historical event actually happened or as in whether the accused committed the crime) tend to be established by their ability to convince a solid majority of expert peers (in the case of history) or a judge or jury (in the case of crime or civil law) of the soundness of the explanation. I have come to the realization that we Christians cannot convince a solid majority of agnostic historians that Jesus actually rose from the dead…nor can I dismiss non-believers as irrational twits who are unable to present reasonable alternate explanations.

Why does it matter who we convince? This entire OP is about testing a teaching to determine if it is one given by God.

No I don’t…I am not restricted to one approach. If I was a faced with deciding whether three accused were each guilty or innocent of a crime, in one case I might be certain that the fellow was innocent b/c I have known him for years and am convinced that he could not do such a thing. With the second fellow I might be convinced that he is innocent b/c of DNA evidence and regarding the third I might know that he is innocent b/c I witnessed the crime. The same person will be convinced by different means on different occasions. Some like Thomas will believe b/c they witness a miracle. Others like the eunuch will believe b/c of a sound explanation of (already accepted) scripture. Faith is established in a variety of ways. For some the gospel message is confirmed by miracles and faith is the result. For some the gospel message is confirmed by a study of the OT and faith is the result. For others the gospel message is confirmed by the integrity of the messenger and faith is the result. Did you have something else in mind that you thought was essential? These are examples from Acts,…do you have a problem with those examples?

You have yet to demonstrate that one doing miracles proves he a true servant of God. The best you have done is demonstrate that people believe for various reasons. See my first reply above for more.

that will indeed work for some…can you prove otherwise?

Again see the previous reply and the first.

miracles are but one way…by taking a very brief look at (a few chapters in) Acts I can also come up with testing against the OT scripture and believing based on the strength of the messenger’s (Paul’s) character…miracles and strength of character don’t involve “testing” (which you seem to think is necessary) but is based on an extraordinary quality possessed by Paul. Scripture is still available to us today, we can’t witness Paul’s miracles and we can get a taste of Paul’s character…Now, what was your point? How does any of this make something other than scripture a reliable source of God’s revelation?

Scripture itself declares God’s Church to be the reliable source. What is the ground and pillar of the truth?

please read more carefully…I am not arguing that your church is reliable…it isn’t…It is that you attributed the wrong reason to my argument. Perhaps I should clarify that I think that your church is somewhat reliable, but far from very reliable.

Where did I say that you are arguing that my church is reliable? I asked you where is the reliable church at. So are you arguing that there is no reliable church in existence today?

 

[Radical]

People believe many things for many reasons.

true, but what I have pointed to is scriptural explanations as to why some believed the gospel…and what is missing from each one of those examples is a reference to an objective test to use to test the validity of the gospel message as presented by the messenger (Paul and Philip in the instances that I cited)…unless you want to consider the manner in which the Bereans checked Paul’s message against their scriptures as an objective test

Unless you are infallible, you need an objective way to test that it is the Holy Spirit talking to you and not just your own selfish imagination.

If you are right, why do the scriptural examples that I provided lack mention of such an objective test. Perhaps you could provide me with a point form objective proof that an objective test is required…or is it that you are claiming that an objective test is needed to attain a certain level of certainty? Either way, please provide the proof and since you think one is necessary, please explain what you use as that objective test. The reality of the human existence is that we stumble along in life and faith w/o the benefit of an infallible knowledge of things and w/o a means or the need of performing an objective test for most everything.

Seems like you think people infallibly hear the Holy Spirit.

nope

Why does it matter who we convince?

b/c outside of math, logic and science that is kinda the manner in which “proof” is provided. For example, in court the guilt of an accused is proven by convincing a jury (or judge) that the fellow did the deed. That “proof” on occasion proves to be a bad “proof” with the fellow being wrongfully convicted, but that doesn’t justify abandoning the whole system…it is the best one we’ve got.

This entire OP is about testing a teaching to determine if it is one given by God.

the type of proof one can gain with such a test is not of the type that one can achieve in math…it is more like the one that can be received in court where the judge/jury determines on a balance of probabilities what he/they think actually happened. It would be rare to get anything that could be properly called “objective” and “certain” wrt the matter of God speaking privately to a person

You have yet to demonstrate that one doing miracles proves he a true servant of God.

well, if he is doing miracles we have at least established that a supernatural power is working with him…that is pretty darn good start. From there it seems often that we have the “sheep know the shepherd” kinda thing going on.

The best you have done is demonstrate that people believe for various reasons.

no, I have done more than that…I have shown that the scriptures say that God confirmed Paul’s message through the use of miracles. Why is that so hard for you to acknowledge? It seems you want to believe that God never used that method. I have also pointed out that the scriptures approvingly present cases of people believing God’s message b/c they witnessed the miraculous (see Acts 9: 40-42 for another such example). I can’t find an example where it is said that after someone believed b/c of a miracle they then managed to solidify their merely subjective faith by utilizing an objective test. I find it odd that you want to tell me what I need (an objective test to determine that it is the Holy Spirit talking to me) as if I (together with the believers described in Acts) am somehow bound to approach life and faith as you dictate. Further, I just can’t find support for your contention in scripture (though that might just be my subjective understanding and not an objective finding).

Scripture itself declares God’s Church to be the reliable source. What is the ground and pillar of the truth?

The church was entrusted with the gospel message and therefore was the pillar and foundation of the truth. The Jewish people were also entrusted with the very words of God (Romans 3:2) including the Law which was the embodiment of knowledge and truth (Romans 2:20). The Jews ended up adding bad traditions to God’s revelation. Are you of the opinion that, b/c the church of the first century is properly called “the pillar and foundation of the truth”, the church leaders of the 2nd century (or some time later) are somehow incapable of adding bad traditions to the very words of God?

Where did I say that you are arguing that my church is reliable? I asked you where is the reliable church at. So are you arguing that there is no reliable church in existence today?

I doubt that any church has gotten it all right…in the case of your church I am confident that I can pin-point a number of errors.

 

[jphilapy]

part 1

true, but what I have pointed to is scriptural explanations as to why some believed the gospel…and what is missing from each one of those examples is a reference to an objective test to use to test the validity of the gospel message as presented by the messenger (Paul and Philip in the instances that I cited)…unless you want to consider the manner in which the Bereans checked Paul’s message against their scriptures as an objective test

If you are right, why do the scriptural examples that I provided lack mention of such an objective test.

You make your argument from silence. You really don’t know what knowledge people are coming to the table with in acts.

Perhaps you could provide me with a point form objective proof that an objective test is required…or is it that you are claiming that an objective test is needed to attain a certain level of certainty? Either way, please provide the proof and since you think one is necessary, please explain what you use as that objective test.

The fact that false teachers come doing miracles should be sufficient enough. How else are you going to test them? If you don’t test them up front, you may soon find yourself at a cool aide party, or at an inhouse bon-fire.

The fact that you don’t believe the catholic church because you believe it is contrary to scripture demonstrates that you think there needs to be a test. Why not just sumbit to the Catholic church if no test is needed?

The fact that you believe scripture is your only reliable autority should be sufficient to demonstrate that you think there needs to be a test.

But you want objective proof?
1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Paul gave us a test:
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

So if an angel appeard to you preaching a false gospel then if you are not going to test him, then you will just fall for it. If one of the apostles is teaching a false gospel then you will just fall for him because of his miracles.

Acts 17:10-12 they were commended for testing the apostles teaching.

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

1Jn 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
1Jn 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1Jn 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

The reality of the human existence is that we stumble along in life and faith w/o the benefit of an infallible knowledge of things and w/o a means or the need of performing an objective test for most everything.

“The reality of the human existence is that” we don’t just stumble upon divine revelational knowledge. Divine revelational knowledge and things in general are just not in the same ball park. Although we can learn of the existence of God through His creation, we cannot learn of how to be saved through His creation.

nope

Then how do you know when the Spirit is speaking to you? How do you know if you are understanding the Spirit correctly?

b/c outside of math, logic and science that is kinda the manner in which “proof” is provided. For example, in court the guilt of an accused is proven by convincing a jury (or judge) that the fellow did the deed. That “proof” on occasion proves to be a bad “proof” with the fellow being wrongfully convicted, but that doesn’t justify abandoning the whole system…it is the best one we’ve got.

No need for me to reply to this as I have demonstrated above the system that scripture gives us.

the type of proof one can gain with such a test is not of the type that one can achieve in math…it is more like the one that can be received in court where the judge/jury determines on a balance of probabilities what he/they think actually happened. It would be rare to get anything that could be properly called “objective” and “certain” wrt the matter of God speaking privately to a person

Then you really can’t say that the catholic church is not the ONE TRUE CHURCH of Christ.

 

[jphilapy]

part 2

well, if he is doing miracles we have at least established that a supernatural power is working with him…that is pretty darn good start. From there it seems often that we have the “sheep know the shepherd” kinda thing going on.

I agree that we have established either a super natural power, or a very good slight of hand depending on what he is doing. What does it mean “sheep know the shepherd”? Apparently you are talking about some subjective feeling. The demonstration of tests above tell us how the sheep know the voice of the shepherd.

no, I have done more than that…I have shown that the scriptures say that God confirmed Paul’s message through the use of miracles. Why is that so hard for you to acknowledge? It seems you want to believe that God never used that method. I have also pointed out that the scriptures approvingly present cases of people believing God’s message b/c they witnessed the miraculous (see Acts 9: 40-42 for another such example). I can’t find an example where it is said that after someone believed b/c of a miracle they then managed to solidify their merely subjective faith by utilizing an objective test. I find it odd that you want to tell me what I need (an objective test to determine that it is the Holy Spirit talking to me) as if I (together with the believers described in Acts) am somehow bound to approach life and faith as you dictate. Further, I just can’t find support for your contention in scripture (though that might just be my subjective understanding and not an objective finding).

As I said earlier, your argument is from silence. And I have never denied that miracles are used in the validation process. I just argued that they were not used alone. Either way, you don’t have miracles now, you just have someone’s testimony. So apparently you think that is enough.

The church was entrusted with the gospel message and therefore was the pillar and foundation of the truth. The Jewish people were also entrusted with the very words of God (Romans 3:2) including the Law which was the embodiment of knowledge and truth (Romans 2:20). The Jews ended up adding bad traditions to God’s revelation. Are you of the opinion that, b/c the church of the first century is properly called “the pillar and foundation of the truth”, the church leaders of the 2nd century (or some time later) are somehow incapable of adding bad traditions to the very words of God?
I doubt that any church has gotten it all right…in the case of your church I am confident that I can pin-point a number of errors.

If the church can add bad traditions to God’s revelation, then that would include Paul right? How are you going to test him?