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

[Stephen168]

I agree that there are Protestants out there that use the Bible as a science book. As far as Galileo running to Germany, I’m guessing that Lutherans probably wouldn’t have gotten all worked up about science, unless Galileo’s theory was being put out there to deny the Trinity.

Why would the Pope or Rome care weather the Sun circled the Earth or vice versa?

The Pope/Catholic Church didn’t care if the earth rotated around the sun; but that fact would have biblical and theology implications. As Galileo himself pointed out that was not a problem for the Catholic Church because the Church did not have a literalist understanding of scripture. But the Church was not willing to entertain these implications based on a ‘theory,’ and it is the Church’s position to teach theology not Galileo’s. So the Church told Galileo to prove it as a fact or stop teaching it as a fact. Galileo could not prove it and he continued to teach it as a fact.

Protestants had a literalist view of the Bible that is why they used it to prove the earth did not move; the Bible said so. The Protestants got worked up because Galileo showed the Bible to be false by their literalist understanding of it. Therefore; the Protestants saw Galileo as a heretic and probably would have been burned him at the stake.

If you are an anti-Catholic living after it was proven the earth rotates around the sun, you can point fingers at the Church. But history shows it was the Protestants who were much more anti-science at the time and Galileo knew it.

 

[Radical]

The Pope/Catholic Church didn’t care if the earth rotated around the sun; but that fact would have biblical and theology implications. As Galileo himself pointed out that was not a problem for the Catholic Church because the Church did not have a literalist understanding of scripture. But the Church was not willing to entertain these implications based on a ‘theory,’ and it is the Church’s position to teach theology not Galileo’s. So the Church told Galileo to prove it as a fact or stop teaching it as a fact. Galileo could not prove it and he continued to teach it as a fact.

The above presents a rather white-washed version of the history. From this site one can read the Papal Condemnation/sentence of Galileo which includes these declarations and this sentence:

*The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.

The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.

We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be prescribed by us for you.*

Tis rather clear that the CC thought:

a) that the sun moved east to west (around the earth) as the earth stood still; and

b) that the idea of the earth moving (and not being the centre of the world) was “contrary to the Holy Scripture” and was an error and heresy.

 

[Stephen168]

Tis rather clear that the CC thought:

a) that the sun moved east to west (around the earth) as the earth stood still; and

b) that the idea of the earth moving (and not being the centre of the world) was “contrary to the Holy Scripture” and was an error and heresy.

If you studied the Galileo Affair you would know from your linked document, nothing is clear about the Church’s POV and especially the Protestant POV at the time. Books have been written on the subject and my post #221 is a simple factual answer to Mikeoffaith’s question.

 

[Radical]

If you studied the Galileo Affair you would know from your linked document, nothing is clear about the Church’s POV …

This sure opens a grand can of worms. Let me see if I have got it right. Galileo publishes a work. The Pope orders it to be examined. Galileo is forced to attend a trial at the Roman Inquisition. The Pope insists that he attends at Rome. A group of cardinals selected to adjudicate the matter renders a decision (see link I provided previously), but it seems that the decision of the official tribunal (overseen by the Pope) and presented in Rome itself cannot be relied upon as representing the POV of the CC. If that is the case, how could one ever be sure that they know what the CC stands for…the OP asked how we would test Paul’s teaching…forget about testing the teaching of the CC, one would have to know what the teaching is first, and if you are right, that is a moving target at best.

The Books have been written on the subject and my post #221 is a simple factual answer to Mikeoffaith’s question.

well here is the other thing…you want to claim that the POV of the CC isn’t clear, but at the same time you want to declare some pretty clear stuff such as:

The Pope/Catholic Church didn’t care if the earth rotated around the sun; …

well what is it…is it clear or isn’t it? Did the decision of the cardinals condemn the idea that the earth moved just for the fun of it? Why did they do that if not even the Pope cared about the matter?

As Galileo himself pointed out that was not a problem for the Catholic Church because the Church did not have a literalist understanding of scripture.

yep, he pointed out that it shouldn’t be viewed as a problem, but that didn’t save him from a trial and it didn’t cause the adjudicators to confirm that his theory was compatible with scipture…they did just the opposite and declared it to be contrary to scripture.

But the Church was not willing to entertain these implications based on a ‘theory,’ and it is the Church’s position to teach theology not Galileo’s.

wasn’t the real problem that Galileo’s reconciliation of science with scripture went against the established interpretation of scripture (by certain fathers and doctors of the church who fancied literalism) and if that established interpretation could be wrong, then it bolstered Protestant claims that other Catholic interpretations of scripture were also wrong?

So the Church told Galileo to prove it as a fact or stop teaching it as a fact. Galileo could not prove it and he continued to teach it as a fact.

This is another clear declaration of the POV of the CC when apparently that POV wasn’t all that clear…but in any event, it is a fact that the earth moves, now isn’t it?

 

[Stephen168]

If you studied the Galileo Affair you would know from your linked document, nothing is clear about the Church’s POV and especially the Protestant POV at the time.
Radical;7328581:

This sure opens a grand can of worms. Let me see if I have got it right. Galileo publishes a work. The Pope orders it to be examined. Galileo is forced to attend a trial at the Roman Inquisition. The Pope insists that he attends at Rome. A group of cardinals selected to adjudicate the matter renders a decision (see link I provided previously), but it seems that the decision of the official tribunal (overseen by the Pope) and presented in Rome itself cannot be relied upon as representing the POV of the CC. If that is the case, how could one ever be sure that they know what the CC stands for…the OP asked how we would test Paul’s teaching…forget about testing the teaching of the CC, one would have to know what the teaching is first, and if you are right, that is a moving target at best.

You seem to have misunderstood my statement. Let me try again:

Tis rather clear that the CC thought:

a) that the sun moved east to west (around the earth) as the earth stood still; and

b) that the idea of the earth moving (and not being the centre of the world) was “contrary to the Holy Scripture” and was an error and heresy.

If you studied the Galileo Affair you would know from your linked document, nothing in the linked document gives a clear understanding of the Church’s POV and especially the Protestant POV at the time.

Books have been written on the subject and my post #221 is a simple factual answer to Mikeoffaith’s question.
Radical;7328581:

well here is the other thing…you want to claim that the POV of the CC isn’t clear, but at the same time you want to declare some pretty clear stuff such as:

If you study the almost 20 year history of the Galileo Affair, the Church’s position is clear but you will not get it from the linked document. So again; my post #221 is a simple factual answer to Mikeoffaith’s question.The remainder of your post #224 seems to be based on your misunderstanding of my post #223 and your not understanding the Catholic or Protestant positions at the time.

If you are an anti-Catholic living after it was proven the earth rotates around the sun, you can point fingers at the Church. But history shows it was the Protestants who were much more anti-science at the time and Galileo knew it.

 

[Stephen168]

The Pope/Catholic Church didn’t care if the earth rotated around the sun; but that fact would have biblical and theology implications.
Radical;7328581:

well what is it…is it clear or isn’t it? Did the decision of the cardinals condemn the idea that the earth moved just for the fun of it? Why did they do that if not even the Pope cared about the matter?

See my bolded above and below

As Galileo himself pointed out that was not a problem for the Catholic Church because the Church did not have a literalist understanding of scripture.
Radical;7328581:

yep, he pointed out that it shouldn’t be viewed as a problem, but that didn’t save him from a trial and it didn’t cause the adjudicators to confirm that his theory was compatible with scipture…they did just the opposite and declared it to be contrary to scripture

.

Review the Catechism of the Catholic Church and pay close attention to references which predate the Galileo Affair by hundreds of years. Then review the principle of causality. Then review my original post again.

But the Church was not willing to entertain these implications based on a ‘theory,’ and it is the Church’s position to teach theology not Galileo’s.
Radical;7328581:

wasn’t the real problem that Galileo’s reconciliation of science with scripture went against the established interpretation of scripture (by certain fathers and doctors of the church who fancied literalism) and if that established interpretation could be wrong, then it bolstered Protestant claims that other Catholic interpretations of scripture were also wrong?

No, see above.

So the Church told Galileo to prove it as a fact or stop teaching it as a fact. Galileo could not prove it and he continued to teach it as a fact.
Radical;7328581:

This is another clear declaration of the POV of the CC when apparently that POV wasn’t all that clear…but in any event, it is a fact that the earth moves, now isn’t it?

Galileo could not prove it

Protestants had a literalist view of the Bible that is why they used it to prove the earth did not move; the Bible said so. The Protestants got worked up because Galileo showed the Bible to be false by their literalist understanding of it. Therefore; the Protestants saw Galileo as a heretic and probably would have been burned him at the stake.
Radical;7328581:

…

Interesting response.

If you are an anti-Catholic living after it was proven the earth rotates around the sun, you can point fingers at the Church. But history shows it was the Protestants who were much more anti-science at the time and Galileo knew it.

It seems to me you really didn’t read and try to understand my original post due to the fact you asked questions which had already been answered in the post.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

The Pope/Catholic Church didn’t care if the earth rotated around the sun; but that fact would have biblical and theology implications. As Galileo himself pointed out that was not a problem for the Catholic Church because the Church did not have a literalist understanding of scripture. But the Church was not willing to entertain these implications based on a ‘theory,’ and it is the Church’s position to teach theology not Galileo’s. So the Church told Galileo to prove it as a fact or stop teaching it as a fact. Galileo could not prove it and he continued to teach it as a fact.

Protestants had a literalist view of the Bible that is why they used it to prove the earth did not move; the Bible said so. The Protestants got worked up because Galileo showed the Bible to be false by their literalist understanding of it. Therefore; the Protestants saw Galileo as a heretic and probably would have been burned him at the stake.

If you are an anti-Catholic living after it was proven the earth rotates around the sun, you can point fingers at the Church. But history shows it was the Protestants who were much more anti-science at the time and Galileo knew it.

And what are the theological implications? If Rome is concerned about theological implications, what is it about the helio vs geocentrism that becomes so theological divisive if the Church of Galileo’s time didn’t have a literalist understanding of scripture?

 

[Stephen168]

And what are the theological implications? If Rome is concerned about theological implications, what is it about the helio vs geocentrism that becomes so theological divisive if the Church of Galileo’s time didn’t have a literalist understanding of scripture?

I think I answered the question.

The Pope/Catholic Church didn’t care if the earth rotated around the sun; but that fact would have biblical and theology implications.** As Galileo himself pointed out that was not a problem for the Catholic Church because the Church did not have a literalist understanding of scripture. But the Church was not willing to entertain these implications based on a ‘theory,’ and it is the Church’s position to teach theology not Galileo’s.** So the Church told Galileo to prove it as a fact or stop teaching it as a fact. Galileo could not prove it and he continued to teach it as a fact.

 

[Stephen168]

Here is the scenario. You are a protestant christian in the church of Galatia during the first century. Paul writes you a letter telling you that you don’t need to be circumcised. Knowing that the OT scripture teaches that all need to be circumcised, how are you going to test the truth of Paul’s statement? It seems to me that by the standards of sola scriptura, you would have to reject Paul’s teaching on at least two points. 1) It contradicts existing, i.e., ot scripture. 2) It is not taught in scripture.

The above two points seem redundant but they are there to set the context of this discussion. First of all if you can test that Paul was not teaching contrary to OT scripture. Then you still have the issue that he was teaching doctrine not found in scripture, which still needs to be tested. So how would you test him in either of those situations?

One Protestant said he would follow Paul because he liked what Paul said and Paul worked wonders.
Next Protestant said he would follow Paul if liked what he heard.
Next four Protestants avoid the question.
Next Protestant attacked the Papacy and the Catholic Church avoiding the question
Next two Protestants avoid the question.
The remainder of the conversation is Protestants attacking Apostolic Succession or distancing themselves from Sola Scriptura which avoids your question.

Interesting

 

[Radical]

One Protestant said he would follow Paul because he liked what Paul said and Paul worked wonders.
Next Protestant said he would follow Paul if liked what he heard.
Next four Protestants avoid the question.
Next Protestant attacked the Papacy and the Catholic Church avoiding the question
Next two Protestants avoid the question.
The remainder of the conversation is Protestants attacking Apostolic Succession or distancing themselves from Sola Scriptura which avoids your question.

Your presentation of the Galileo case and the above seem to indicate that you tend to view everything through tainted glasses so that you only have to see what you want to see. You might recall that a good part of my conversation with jphilapy was him insisting that I must have an objective test. I asked a) why it was that I must have such a test, and b) if one was necessary what was his? Nothing of substance was given in answer to either question. Jmcrae, hoped to fill the void by pointing to apostolic succession as the “objective evidence” and actually had the gall to suggest the lineage was well accepted by atheists and other secular sources…and now you insist that the CC was merely insisting that Galileo shouldn’t teach a theory as fact. If your version was correct, then Galileo should have only had to admit that his view was only a theory and the judgement at his trial should only have declared that his view was only a theory and that it wasn’t certain if the earth moved or not. But such is not the case…here is what Galileo was forced to admit:

…and for this reason I have been pronounced by the Holy Office to be vehemently suspected of heresy, that is to say, of having held and believed that …the earth is not the center and moves… I abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies, and generally every other error, heresy, and sect whatsoever contrary to the said Holy Church, and I swear that in the future I will never again say or assert, verbally or in writing, anything that might furnish occasion for a similar suspicion regarding me…

and here again is a piece of the judgement:

The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.

Father Lorini decribed the problem precisely:

…they [the ‘Galileists’] expounded the Holy Scriptures according to their private lights and in a manner different from that of the common interpretation of the Fathers of the Church; that they strove to defend an opinion which appeared to be quite contrary to the sacred text; that they spoke in slighting terms of the ancient Fathers and of St. Thomas Aquinas;

in other words, like Protestants, they had the courage to differ from the “Fathers of the Church” in their interpretation of scripture…or, if you strive for an objective test (like jphilapy), Protestants and Galieists alike didn’t find that “objective test” in the Fathers or in the CC…but the CC could a least control Galileo by means of the sword.

The bottom lines on all of this:

a) the OP is irrelevant for the task of determining the validity of SS

b) apostolic succession is a matter of faith and even Catholic scholars will readily admit that evidence for its establishment is lacking in the NT and earliest Church Fathers; and

c) your claims with respect to the Galileo affair do not (in any way) account for the actual evidence.

 

[jphilapy]

So that we don’t have to span too many multiple posts, I have shortened your replies below. If any one whishes to get the full contect,then please click on the arrow next to the reply to visit the post in its entirety.

Part 1

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

I think fulfilled prophecy constitutes an objective test. You know that Paul’s normal method of preaching the gospel was to demonstrate from scripture that Jesus is the Messiah. So that approach would make for an objective test. However the fact that miracles were done, served to get the people’s attention. I believe people can choose to initially believe based on miracles. I am guessing that you and I cannot see eye to eye on this due to our understanding of what is salvation. If you see salvation that occurs for a person only one time then you and I will see this subject differently. To illustrate, you see people as believing one time and thus miracles are sufficient. I see people believing initially, but if they dont dig deeper then they are in danger of following away. In your pov do you need an objective test?

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.

Scripture gives us potential danger. False teachers. And you presented a potential, the fallibility of man. Since the OP is about Paul teaching that one does not need to be circumcised, and OT says one does, you have a situation where you have to be concerned. Granted if you have already come to believe much of what Paul says then you will initially react differently toward him than one who hasn’t believed yet, but knows the scriptures. In the former you may just conclude Paul is in error whereas the latter you would be more likely to conclude he is a false teacher.

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.

That by definition would qualify it as an objective test. I think you are confusing objective test with true testing. Something can be objective, but not necessarily true. For example, consulting with an honest realestate expert about buying a house would be more objective than relying on your own knowledge. Consulting with 3 experts would be even more objective. But consulting with a con-artist, though technically more objective than relying on your own knowledge is still just as bad as being subjective. Scripture is a true test because:
internal consistency, fullfilled prophecy, historical testimony and the consistency of all these things.

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”.

See above for objective test.

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

Exactly my point. Perhaps that is why scripture says there is wisdom in counsels. Pro 11:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety. But what good is a counsel if it is not guided by God? Islam has a counsel. Protestantism has a counsel. The flesh has a counsel.

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

See my explanation of what objective is.

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.

Why does it matter if you are a pretty good judge of people? So far your only test is one of miracles. Only now does judging a person’s character enter this discussion as a criteria for weather you will accept somones character or not. Are you now changing your mind and partially agreeing with me that there is mora than miracles needed to judge?

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

Agreed on this point. But that puts us past just accepting miracles as proof now doesn’t it?

 

[jphilapy]

Part 2

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).
…
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.

I agree with every thing here you say execpt the part about using scripture is a subjective act. It can be but does not have to be.

Being objective would mean you step outside of your own understanding to see the evidence. If the evidence is valid then you allow that to shape your own understanding. As human’s we have the ability to recognize basic facts. And God knowing that, delievers them to us. Probably the one thing that prevents us from being obectjive is our unwillingness to humble ourselves and learn.

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.
…
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?

I won’t reply to everything in your reply above since I have enough on my plate already. I believe as human’s we are capable of being objective. See my other remarks above about being objective.

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

No not at all. That verse has to be taken in context with the entiriety of scripture. What good is it if you agree with God on one thing while opposing Him on another? To take John the way you have just done would be to force John to say that none of the other things he said, matter.

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)
…
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…

I agree that God is involved in bringing someone to belief. However unless you are infallible then you are at risk of thinking you hear God or incorrectly hearing God. So following your line of argument, you really don’t know if you are drawn unless you are infallible. NOTE: Being fallible doesn’t mean you can’t get things right. You can get things right. You just need an objective way to do so. You need to step outside of your own opinions and examine the evidence.

see previous posts

Well up till I made that point, you were contending that miracles alone were a sufficient test. However it is not clear to me what your position is now. In the previous replies you have argued the following: We can’t really have an objective test. You would test Paul’s character. You would use scripture to test the message.

 

[jphilapy]

You might recall that a good part of my conversation with jphilapy was him insisting that I must have an objective test. I asked a) why it was that I must have such a test, and b) if one was necessary what was his? Nothing of substance was given in answer to either question.

I am sorry, holiday season is keeping me busy. Don’t be so quick to broadcast my downfall.

 

[jphilapy]

a) the OP is irrelevant for the task of determining the validity of SS

I don’t agree with your conclusion. I think the OP did a great job to illustrate the invalidity. In fact to the point that you couldn’t use scripture to resolve the conundrum but stead you fell back on some theory about how it was enough to accept Paul’s conclusions based on the fact that he did miracles. But after seeing that that line of argument is unworkable you began to change your position to include testing of character and some scripture testing.

My own argument actually relies more on the use of scripture then yours does and it is supposed to be your only infallible authority. Scripture alone is not workable in any time period.

 

[Stephen168]

Your presentation of the Galileo case and the above seem to indicate that you tend to view everything through tainted glasses so that you only have to see what you want to see.

My statement was a factual list of Protestant answers to the question: how are you going to test the truth of Paul’s statement? It was not about you. I thought it was interesting that seven of nine Protestants answered the question by avoiding an answer to the question.
My point in reference to Copernicus’ theory of the earth moving around the sun was that Protestants rejected it also, and they used the Bible to prove Copernicus wrong; which to 17th century Catholics was silly and scary. And it is why it makes sense that Galileo did not run to a Protestant country to seek protection for the Catholic Church. Galileo would most likely have been burned at the stake for his teachings if he did.

…and now you insist that the CC was merely insisting that** Galileo shouldn’t teach a theory as fact.** If your version was correct, then Galileo should have only had to admit that his view was only a theory and the judgement at his trial should only have declared that his view was only a theory and that it wasn’t certain if the earth moved or not. But such is not the case…here is what Galileo was forced to admit:
… I wrote and printed a book in which I discuss this new doctrine already condemned, and adduce arguments of great cogency in its favor, without presenting any solution of these, and for this reason I have been pronounced by the Holy Office to be vehemently suspected of heresy, that is to say, of having held and believed that …the earth is not the center and moves… I abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies, and generally every other error, heresy, and sect whatsoever contrary to the said Holy Church, and I swear that in the future I will never again say or assert, verbally or in writing, anything that might furnish occasion for a similar suspicion regarding me…

Contrary to what you think the Catholic Church should have done by your reason, my simple explanation is factual. And I repeat; books have been written about this subject and any out of context quotes you come up with will not change the Church’s position as I have explained it. I added the bolded part that you left out of Galileo’s recantation in reference to the part of your quote I bolded.

The Catholic Church is able to pass on the deposit of faith without the Bible just like it did in the first three centuries of Christian history and as you know from reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church as I suggested, you know the Church is not held to a literalist view of scripture and Galileo know it. Protestants need the Bible and many have a literalist view of it to this day. It is an interesting idea to think how a Protestant would know who to believe in the first few centuries of Christian history.

 

[jphilapy]

My point in reference to Copernicus’ theory of the earth moving around the sun was that Protestants rejected it also, and they used the Bible to prove Copernicus wrong; which to 17th century Catholics was silly and scary. And it is why it makes sense that Galileo did not run to a Protestant country to seek protection for the Catholic Church. Galileo would most likely have been burned at the stake for his teachings if he did.

The irony of protestants bringing up Galileo is that they want to implicate the catholic church for following the scripture on a point. In the eyes of protestantism catholicism is damned if it does and damned if it doesnt. And to add insult to injury, they want to pretend that they are not guilty of it themselves.

 

[Stephen168]

The irony of protestants bringing up Galileo is that they want to implicate the catholic church for following the scripture on a point. In the eyes of protestantism catholicism is damned if it does and damned if it doesnt. And to add insult to injury, they want to pretend that they are not guilty of it themselves.

True. I usually see it brought up in reference to the Catholic Church being anti-science when Protestants were more anti-science at the time; AND science was not the main focus of the Galileo Affair.

 

[Marlowann]

The irony of protestants bringing up Galileo is that they want to implicate the catholic church for following the scripture on a point. In the eyes of protestantism catholicism is damned if it does and damned if it doesnt. And to add insult to injury, they want to pretend that they are not guilty of it themselves.

To be fair, if you talk to any particular protestant, he will probably not say “It’s the Church’s fault for being literalist,” and then immediately say “the Church is at folly for not being literalist.” There are protestants who would find folly in Catholic literalism and other protestants who wouldn’t, and one shouldn’t group them all together, since they are all trying to find the truth and some of them fall farther away from it than others.

 

[Radical]

So that we don’t have to span too many multiple posts, I have shortened your replies below.

makes sense to me

I think fulfilled prophecy constitutes an objective test.

so then, not all of the examples I gave from Acts enjoyed an objective test

You know that Paul’s normal method of preaching the gospel was to demonstrate from scripture that Jesus is the Messiah. So that approach would make for an objective test.

It might, except that the prophecies are not subject to a single interpretation. For example at Matt 2:15 it reads:

“…where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”” (NIV)

with Hosea 1:11 reading * “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.” * (NIV)

Not everyone will see Hosea 11:1 as a prophecy or believe that Matt describes a fulfillment of it. IMHO, subjective interpretation is involved.

I am guessing that you and I cannot see eye to eye on this due to our understanding of what is salvation. If you see salvation that occurs for a person only one time then you and I will see this subject differently. To illustrate, you see people as believing one time and thus miracles are sufficient. I see people believing initially, but if they dont dig deeper then they are in danger of following away.

You have guessed wrongly. What you might also be missing in all of this is that it is my contention that we are not all alike, we will react differently to different things. An inquiring mind is not possessed by everyone, and as such, not everyone will “dig deeper”. Some of Paul’s converts, when they later questioned their faith would merely remember again and again that his message was confirmed by miracles and that fact would have been sufficient to restore their faith. You seem to think everyone must require the same assurance for their faith…I don’t. As far as an objective test goes, before scientific methodology established itself as the “go to” methodology, I doubt that many even thought in terms of an objective test to verify the source of their beliefs.

In your pov do you need an objective test?

no

Scripture gives us potential danger. False teachers. And you presented a potential, the fallibility of man. Since the OP is about Paul teaching that one does not need to be circumcised, and OT says one does, you have a situation where you have to be concerned.

This doesn’t describe Paul’s teaching or the OT teaching very well. The OT taught that those under the existing covenant had to be circumcised. The OT also taught that there would be a new covenant and that salvation would include the Gentiles. Paul’s message included that Jesus instituted a new covenant and that he was taking the message of salvation (and the new covenant) to the Gentiles.

Granted if you have already come to believe much of what Paul says then you will initially react differently toward him than one who hasn’t believed yet, but knows the scriptures. In the former you may just conclude Paul is in error whereas the latter you would be more likely to conclude he is a false teacher.

Or one might note that 1) circumcision was required under the old covenant; 2) Paul taught the the old covenant had passed away; and 3) under the new covenant Gentiles did not need to be circumcized. There is no conflict that requires one to conclude that Paul was either in error or a false teacher.

That by definition would qualify it as an objective test. I think you are confusing objective test with true testing.

No, not at all. When one holds the teachings of the CC to scripture, it seems unavoidable that the interpretation of scripture is involved. IMHO interpretation is an inherently subjective endeavor.

Scripture is a true test because:
internal consistency, fullfilled prophecy, historical testimony and the consistency of all these things.

Scripture can be a good test, but I don’t see the interpretation of it being free from subjectivity.

Why does it matter if you are a pretty good judge of people? So far your only test is one of miracles. Only now does judging a person’s character enter this discussion as a criteria for weather you will accept somones character or not. Are you now changing your mind and partially agreeing with me that there is mora than miracles needed to judge?

You need to keep in mind that we are pursuing two lines of thought here…for the first century Galatian my answer was “b/c of confirmation by miracles”. I, myself, have never seen what one could objectively called a miracle…so obviously what I do today and the answer I gave for your hypothetical 1st centruy Galatian are two different things. I have referenced 4 different approaches that are shown in Acts of which only one utilized confirmation by miracles. W/o confirmation by miracles I am left utilizing a combination of the other three approaches…and in fact I gave you an example of how I would utilize a combo of those three approaches to evaluate the CC at the end of post #182 of this thread.

Agreed on this point. But that puts us past just accepting miracles as proof now doesn’t it?

it sure does…but that might just be b/c we don’t have anyone performing miracles with great perseverance any more.

 

[Radical]

I agree with every thing here you say execpt the part about using scripture is a subjective act. It can be but does not have to be.

well, I guess we’ll just end up disagreeing on that point…as it pertains to the main issues

Being objective would mean you step outside of your own understanding to see the evidence.

well at least we can agree upon what “being objective” would entail.

I won’t reply to everything in your reply above since I have enough on my plate already. I believe as human’s we are capable of being objective.

agreed, but not all things allow us to exercise that capability…see below

No not at all. That verse has to be taken in context with the entiriety of scripture. What good is it if you agree with God on one thing while opposing Him on another? To take John the way you have just done would be to force John to say that none of the other things he said, matter.

I had asked for your “objective test”. In response you (in part) provided 1 John 4:1-3, but as soon as I present one understanding of that passage you say that I haven’t got it right…and thus the subjectivity of the interpretation of scripture is demonstrated.

You just need an objective way to do so. You need to step outside of your own opinions and examine the evidence.

…but if the evidence is scripture and the passage requires an interpretation (and the ones surrounding the issues always do), then your interpretation is an opinion…you can’t get away from the subjectivity.

Don’t be so quick to broadcast my downfall.

I don’t know that I declared your downfall…absence perhaps, but in any event, don’t be too quick in denying your downfall

I don’t agree with your conclusion. I think the OP did a great job to illustrate the invalidity. In fact to the point that you couldn’t use scripture to resolve the conundrum but stead you fell back on some theory about how it was enough to accept Paul’s conclusions based on the fact that he did miracles. But after seeing that that line of argument is unworkable you began to change your position to include testing of character and some scripture testing.

hopefully you can now see how this is a misdescription

My own argument actually relies more on the use of scripture then yours does…

nope, the first difference is that I don’t claim that it can be used with a great deal of objectivity with regard to the main issues (and that is why they remain the main issues).