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

[Radical]

Hello, jphilapy. I’ll have to do this in 2 or 3 parts, so here is part one.

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

so what do you assume they had that could constitute an objective test? I think I’ve given you 4 examples from Acts by now:

a) the Bereans….we know that they had access to the Hebrew scriptures, they heard Paul’s message, likely witnessed miracles by Paul and probably where in a position to make a decision to evaluate Paul’s integrity. They might have had access to Jewish traditions and Greek philosophy, but we know neither of those were free from error.

b) The eunuch… we know that he had access to the Hebrew scriptures and that he heard Philip’s explanation and he could have made a very limited assessment of Philip’s integrity. He might have had access to Jewish traditions and Greek philosophy.

c) The jailer….it seems that he would have heard Paul’s message and that he made a snap decision regarding Paul’s character based very limited contact.

d) The people of Iconium……it seems that they would have heard Paul’s message and seen quite a few miracles. They too would have had access to Jewish traditions and Greek philosophy, but we know neither of those were free from error.

So then, what did any of these four possess that would constitute (in your mind) an objective test? If you are going to insist that I require an objective test, then surely all of these would have had to have one as well…so what was the objective test employed in each of those four examples? What are your speculations and/or assumptions?

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.

You may also find that the fellow walking towards you on the street will pull a gun, our that the coffee that you bought a *bucks is poisoned or that the woman you plan to marry will shoot you. Simply b/c one can envision potential dangers does not mean that a objective test is available to eliminate the danger or that an objective test is of practical use. You need to show more than a potential danger.

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.

I do think that I have something up to which I can hold the performance and teaching of the CC, but that doesn’t mean that I think that I possess an ** objective ** test.

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.

I would suggest that it demonstrates my belief that I require something that is reliable upon which to base my faith. Again, I can choose to use scripture as a standard against which to test other things, but that doesn’t mean that I think that such a “test” will be “objective”.

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

so you determine something is good, how is that determination objective?

Paul gave us a test: ….

but you are the one saying we need to objectively test whatever Paul says…how did you objectively test his suggested test?

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.

I doubt it…you see I am a pretty good judge of people and things, but I can’t claim that I have an ** objective** test to utilize for every situation….you might even say that it is my subjective opinion that I am a pretty good judge.

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.

….so if this sets out your objective test, then I guess you would conclude that most any protestant movement is of God, right?

 

[Radical]

“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.

I’ll agree that Paul’s testimony (if it contained divine revelation) is not in the same ball park as Bob’s testimony (at a murder trial), however, we receive those two testimonies utilizing the same senses and we process what we sense using the same mental faculties so I don’t see the distinction that you are trying to make. Apart from Paul’s ability to do miracles (which we can no longer witness) how do we assess the truthfulness of Paul’s testimony in a different way than how we assess the truthfulness of Bob’s testimony…I think the same things such as integrity of the witness and coherency and consistency of the testimony are utilized in both instances

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

I have never heard a voice that I would attribute to God. If someone approached me and claimed to be speaking on behalf of God I would check (like the Bereans) to see if what the fellow was saying was consistent with what is already recognized as being from God (scripture). The confirmation of the message (like those from Iconium enjoyed) by clear miracles would sure be nice, but I have never encountered someone with that ability. As such, I would be reserved in my judgment b/c w/o miracles I would view the person as being on a level below the apostles (at best)…and w/o apostolic status I will be extremely cautious. Further, (like the jailer) I would look at the character of the fellow. The only way (IMHO) one could be speaking on behalf of God would be by being empowered by the HS. We are given a description of what the fruit of the Spirit looks like and so if that fruit was absent I would doubt that the fellow was empowered by the HS. Checking the fellow’s message against scripture is often a subjective act and evaluating the fellow’s character can also be rather subjective…I wouldn’t call either judgment to be an “objective test”, but a subjective test is often as good as it gets.

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

Sure I can…I can even do it whilst walking and chewing gum. I just won’t claim infallibility for myself or inerrancy for my decisions as I make the declaration. The CC claims to be the one true church and therefore to be the voice of God on earth. I would evaluate that claim in much the same way as I would evaluate the claim of the individual who claims to be speaking for God. Do I see anything in the CC that sets it apart; making it the one true church and every other denomination of a different lower type? Well, I sure don’t see clear irrefutable miracles from the CC (see my discussion with jmcrae above) and particularly from the fellow who claims to be the successor of the apostle Peter (who in stark contrast, could perform clear miracles in public). Second, I don’t see in the hierarchy or the laity of the CC the fruit of the Holy Spirit to the extent that exceeds what can be seen in other denominations…further, if I look to history, at times the integrity of the hierarchy of the CC was absolutely dreadful (suggesting that it was anything but led by the HS). Third, much of what the CC teaches is not consistent with scripture (scripture being a thing that the CC itself admits to be God’s revelation) and consistency can only be approached by what are (IMHO) forced and self-serving interpretations of various passages. As such, the CC fails my subjective three-fold test. Now, I wouldn’t begin to suggest that mine is an objective evaluation. There are many (likely millions of) well-informed, very intelligent and rational individuals who come to the conclusion that the CC is the ONE TRUE CHURCH (though I suspect the majority of such individuals are on my side). It would seem that the judgments involved are subjective…wouldn’t you agree?..or do you think that you have an objective means of evaluating the CC’s claim?

 

[jmcrae]

Do I see anything in the CC that sets it apart; making it the one true church and every other denomination of a different lower type?

Well, for starters, it’s the only one with a traceable lineage back to the Apostles, and secondly, it’s the only one in existence today that is of the right age to be the one that Christ established - there are no Protestant churches that were started before 1517 AD, which is nearly a millenium and a half later than when Jesus and the Apostles started their Church - which means that, none of them is qualified.

 

[JonNC]

Well, for starters, it’s the only one with a traceable lineage back to the Apostles,

Orthodox can trace their’s back, PNCC can, Old Catholics can, Scandinavian Lutherans can, Anglicans can.

and secondly, it’s the only one in existence today that is of the right age to be the one that Christ established -

Orthodoxy, by this definition.

there are no Protestant churches that were started before 1517 AD, which is nearly a millenium and a half later than when Jesus and the Apostles started their Church - which means that, none of them is qualified.

Lutherans trace through our roots in the Church Catholic. That said, the definition of “The Church” as one particular institutional organization is problematic, particularly since the Great Schism.

Jon

 

[jmcrae]

Lutherans trace through our roots in the Church Catholic. That said, the definition of “The Church” as one particular institutional organization is problematic, particularly since the Great Schism.

Actually, Luther himself is the break-off point - those whom Luther ordained to the priesthood were not true priests (because Luther was not a Bishop), and neither was anyone that they further ordained - the lineage stops at Luther and goes no further.

 

[Radical]

part 2

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”?

To get a feel for what I meant, have a look at John 6 and John 10. In 6 note verses such as:

*All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. (NIV)

“Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. 44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me.(NIV)*

And from John 10 note this:

14 “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me-- 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father–and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life–only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.” 19 At these words the Jews were again divided. 20 Many of them said, “He is demon-possessed and raving mad. Why listen to him?” 21 But others said, “These are not the sayings of a man possessed by a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?”(NIV)

It seems from these sort of verses that God is involved in bringing someone to belief…also, please note that the concern at the end (is Jesus demon possessed or not) is the sort of concern that you have raised repeatedly on this thread. The response in verse 21 seems rather subjective and not at all to be the objective test that you require…

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

see previous posts

 

[Radical]

Well, for starters, it’s the only one with a traceable lineage back to the Apostles, …

well, for starters this is merely a claim and not necessarily a fact. besides the problems with your claim that Jon has pointed out;

a) by what objective test has it been established that there is a thing such as a “mechanical” apostolic succession;

b) assuming you prove (a), by what objective test has it been established that apostolic succession is as described and claimed by the CC;

c) assuming you prove (b), by what objective test has it been established that the CC possesses this apostolic succession?

If jphilapy is consistent, he will want objective tests to establish the veracity of your claim…and the “CC is the one true church b/c the CC says so” assertion is rather too circular and too subjective.

and secondly, it’s the only one in existence today that is of the right age to be the one that Christ established

again, our friend will want an objective standard by which to verify that the CC can legitimately claim to be the same in substance as the church that Christ established such that the “right age” can be attributed to it…and then, of course, being of the right age is hardly conclusive by itself.

 

[JonNC]

Actually, Luther himself is the break-off point - those whom Luther ordained to the priesthood were not true priests (because Luther was not a Bishop), and neither was anyone that they further ordained - the lineage stops at Luther and goes no further.

What about those Scandinavian Lutherans who did and do have bishop ordinations in succession, or the Catholic priests in the past who did not (yes, there have been some)?

Jon

 

[jmcrae]

well, for starters this is merely a claim and not necessarily a fact.

This is like saying that the American presidency is just a claim and not a historical fact.

The evidence of the Succession is constant and everywhere. Even the atheists agree that Peter, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, was the first Pope of the Catholic Church, and they, too, can list them off in order - just as anyone can list off the Presidents of the United States in order, even if he is not an American citizen.

No one who reads the Encyclopedia disagrees with either of these lists.

a) by what objective test has it been established that there is a thing such as a “mechanical” apostolic succession;

By the fact that the Early Fathers were writing about it, documenting it, and reminding people to be obedient to the Bishop of Rome as well as to their own Bishops, becasue they were appointed by the Bishop of Rome.

b) assuming you prove (a), by what objective test has it been established that apostolic succession is as described and claimed by the CC;

Again, the list is available in any secular Encyclopedia, alongside the lists of the Presidents of the United States, the names of the planets, and other lists that are commonly known and not disagreed with by serious people who know what they are talking about.

c) assuming you prove (b), by what objective test has it been established that the CC possesses this apostolic succession?

Because Pope Benedict XVI is the newest name on that list that begins with the Apostle Peter (a list that first began to be promulgated by Irenaeus, long before there were any schismatic groups or Protestants), and the Church that he happens to be the leader of is the Catholic Church.

 

[Radical]

This is like saying that the American presidency is just a claim and not a historical fact.

The evidence of the Succession is constant and everywhere. Even the atheists agree that Peter, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, was the first Pope of the Catholic Church, and they, too, can list them off in order - just as anyone can list off the Presidents of the United States in order, even if he is not an American citizen.

I am trying to remember if I have ever read a post in these forums that presented a view that was more out of touch with current academic opinion than this one of yours…I can’t (but I am not trying all that hard). It is difficult to know where to start or whether it is worth bothering.

One of the leading works (by a Catholic) that looks at apostolic succession is From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church, by Francis A. Sullivan, a priest and theologian. Here is how some of Sullivan’s points are presented by R P McBrien (another Catholic scholar) at this site :

*This understanding of apostolic succession, which many Catholics continue to believe, assumes that each validly ordained Catholic bishop can trace his episcopal consecration in an unbroken line back to one of the original apostles or to the apostles collectively.
Jesuit Fr. Francis Sullivan, my former professor of ecclesiology at the Pontifical Gregorian University and currently professor at Boston College, offers two reasons for opposing such a view.

First, the apostles were not bishops in the present-day meaning of the word. They were missionaries and founders of local churches. There is no evidence, nor is there likely ever to be any evidence, that any of the apostles took up permanent residence in a particular church, or diocese, as its bishop.

Second, although some local churches had pastoral leaders who were called bishops (see the Acts of the Apostles 20:17-35, especially verse 28), it remains unclear whether these “bishops” were actually appointed or ordained by the apostle Paul or by any other apostle.

“The New Testament,” Fr. Sullivan writes, “offers no support for a theory of apostolic succession that supposes the apostles appointed or ordained a bishop for each of the churches they founded.”

Nor does the Didache (“The Teaching”), an ancient book of basic instructions for Christians, contain any “suggestion that such pastoral officers would derive their authority in any way from a founding apostle.”

Pope St. Clement’s letter to the Corinthians, known as 1 Clement, written 30 years after St. Paul’s death, indicates that the church in Corinth was being led by a group of presbyters (priests), with no indication of a bishop.

Not even St. Ignatius of Antioch, who is a major source for our knowledge of the organization of the early church, suggests that “he saw his episcopal authority as derived from the mandate Christ gave to the apostles. … He never invoked the principle of apostolic succession to explain or justify the role and authority of bishops.”

“One conclusion seems obvious,” Fr. Sullivan writes. “Neither the New Testament nor early Christian history offers support for a notion of apostolic succession as ‘an unbroken line of episcopal ordination from Christ through the apostles down through the centuries to the bishops of today.’ ” *

Forget about claiming that Peter was the first Pope…is there a reputable scholar that would dare to make that claim? It is unlikely that Peter should be properly called a bishop and even less likely that Rome had a single monarchical bishop at the time1st Clement was written (or earlier). Sadly, what you suggest as history is pure fantasy.

 

[jmcrae]

I am trying to remember if I have ever read a post in these forums that presented a view that was more out of touch with current academic opinion than this one of yours…I can’t (but I am not trying all that hard).

Current academic opinion is informed by The Jesus Seminar, which is about as out of touch with the Holy Tradition as you can get, and as near to Atheism as you can get without actually denying the existence of God.

 

[Radical]

Current academic opinion is informed by The Jesus Seminar,…

McBrien is a prof at Notre Dame and Sullivan was a longtime prof at at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. These aren’t members of some fringe group overly influenced by the people of the Jesus Seminar…these are two of the best catholic scholars that Catholic Universities could hope to find (in order to bolster their reputations as quality institutes). They are also fellows that, in part through their study of history, have realized that the CC has sadly gone rather off-track in certain areas. They hope to bring the CC back on track from within. They aren’t alone by any means. I realize that you would like to dismiss their opinions as irrelevant, but then I also note that Galileo’s heliocentrism was not always attractive to conservative Catholics…if only it could have been dismissed as a product of the Jesus Seminar.

 

[jmcrae]

McBrien is a prof at Notre Dame and Sullivan was a longtime prof at at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. These aren’t members of some fringe group overly influenced by the people of the Jesus Seminar…these are two of the best catholic scholars that Catholic Universities could hope to find (in order to bolster their reputations as quality institutes). They are also fellows that, in part through their study of history, have realized that the CC has sadly gone rather off-track in certain areas. They hope to bring the CC back on track from within. They aren’t alone by any means. I realize that you would like to dismiss their opinions as irrelevant, but then I also note that Galileo’s heliocentrism was not always attractive to conservative Catholics…if only it could have been dismissed as a product of the Jesus Seminar.

You’re reading McBrien? He is not considered “main stream,” I don’t think. (I hope not!) Neither is Hans Kung; he has also worked in Rome, but was excommunicated - working in Rome isn’t always a sign of orthodoxy.

By the way, totally off topic, but Galileo’s theory has also been proven false - the Universe does not go around the Sun, either - so it’s a good thing that the Church didn’t make it a Doctrine of the Faith to be required to believe that the Universe goes around the Sun, as Galileo wanted Her to do. Can you imagine the laughing-stock we would be today, if Galileo had had his way?

 

[mortonsam]

Sola scriptura is an answer to a question that we ask today. It obviously wasn’t a good answer when Christ was walking the earth, it wasn’t a good answer when OT prophets were giving prophecies and it wasn’t a good answer when apostles were teaching. However, unless we still have someone on earth with the reliability/infallibility of Christ, or an OT prophet or an apostle, then it still might be the right answer for today.

Very well put!

 

[Stephen168]

1Clement 42:1
The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus
Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God.

1Clem 42:2
So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both
therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order.

1Clem 42:3
Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured
through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in
the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went
forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come.

1Clem 42:4
So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their
firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops
and deacons unto them that should believe.

1Clem 44:1
And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would
be strife over the name of the bishop’s office.

1Clem 44:2
For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge,
they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a
continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men
should succeed to their ministration. Those therefore who were
appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the
consent of the whole Church, and have ministered unblamably to the
flock of Christ in lowliness of mind, peacefully and with all
modesty, and for long time have borne a good report with all these
men we consider to be unjustly thrust out from their ministration.

1Clem 44:3
For it will be no light sin for us, if we thrust out those who have
offered the gifts of the bishop’s office unblamably and holily.

 

[Stephen168]

What about those Scandinavian Lutherans who did and do have bishop ordinations in succession, or the Catholic priests in the past who did not (yes, there have been some)?

Jon

Are you suggesting Apostolic Succession is through the Priesthood?

 

[Radical]

You’re reading McBrien?

yep…got a copy of “The Church” at Chapters @ Dalhousie, Calgary AB…I am sure they would order one in for you.

He is not considered “main stream,” I don’t think.

well he is…the reason that the NA bishops felt that they had to address his history and theology (that didn’t agree with the “Vatican’s authorized version”) was that so many Catholic schools were using his books as texts. Of course, when one goes outside of Catholic schools, McBrien just might be viewed as being too catholic/conservative.

Neither is Hans Kung; he has also worked in Rome, but was excommunicated - working in Rome isn’t always a sign of orthodoxy.

last time I looked…which isn’t that long ago, Kung was not excommunicated. What you seem to be missing is that conservative Catholicism is the minority, not the majority

By the way, totally off topic, but Galileo’s theory has also been proven false - the Universe does not go around the Sun, either - so it’s a good thing that the Church didn’t make it a Doctrine of the Faith to be required to believe that the Universe goes around the Sun, as Galileo wanted Her to do. Can you imagine the laughing-stock we would be today, if Galileo had had his way?

I doubt that Galileo wanted the church to make heliocentrism a Doctrine of Faith…and not only is it that two wrongs don’t make a right, it is also that a lesser wrong doesn’t justify a greater wrong. Galileo’s view was an advance and the CC was simply wrong.

 

[Stephen168]

You also recognize that Paul is an apostle; in fact, being in Galatia, you probably also understand a little Greek, so you probably also know that the word “apostle” is Greek for “sent one.” With your own ears you may even have heard Paul say that preachers must be “sent.”

Now, what does “to be sent” mean, except that someone in authority over you has conferred the privilege and authority upon you? It should go without saying that the one who confers the authority must be superior in authority to the one being commissioned, since no one can confer that which he does not possess himself. Deep down, you even know that there is a Scriptural basis for this… when King Jereboam began to rule the northern tribes of Israel, it is noted that his sin was not dividing the kingdom, but dividing the Old Testament “church” by setting up alternative places of worship, and illegitimately appointing pastors:
(1 Kings 12) 30 This led to sin, because the people frequented these calves in Bethel and in Dan. 31 He also built temples on the high places and made priests from among the people who were not Levites.

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.

I don’t think even Paul was ‘sent’ directly by God (Acts 9:26-30), but I understand your point.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

It appears that by avoiding one mud puddle you stepped into another. So you think Paul was wrong then about the second coming?

How so? Do I think Paul was wrong about the second coming, no, I think Paul as the rest of us believe in the second coming. I do think his anticipated timeline may have been a bit ambitious.

 

[jmcrae]

yep…got a copy of “The Church” at Chapters @ Dalhousie, Calgary AB…I am sure they would order one in for you.

No thanks; I get my books from Lumen Christi - anything Paul doesn’t carry, I don’t need.

well he is…the reason that the NA bishops felt that they had to address his history and theology (that didn’t agree with the “Vatican’s authorized version”) was that so many Catholic schools were using his books as texts. Of course, when one goes outside of Catholic schools, McBrien just might be viewed as being too catholic/conservative.

I doubt that, actually.

I doubt that Galileo wanted the church to make heliocentrism a Doctrine of Faith

Yes, that’s what he was put into house arrest for. Not for his books, but for preaching his theory in Church from the Ambo, and demanding that all priests preach his theory as Doctrine of the Faith, from the Ambo.

…and not only is it that two wrongs don’t make a right, it is also that a lesser wrong doesn’t justify a greater wrong. Galileo’s view was an advance and the CC was simply wrong.

Actually, it’s Copernicus’ view that has turned out to be correct, and Copernicus was 100 years before Galileo. Copernicus’ theory was accepted by the Church as “plausible.” Galileo was stepping backwards; not moving forward.