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

[Radical]

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.

It is certainly true that Protestant churches make doctrinal mistakes, but they would only be in the same (guilty) boat as the CC (in that regard), if they claimed to be the one true church (with an official teaching free of any error no less) whilst they made those doctrinal errors…fortunately not all Protestants are that blind to their mistakes.

 

[Stephen168]

if they claimed to be the one true church (with an official teaching free of any error no less) whilst they made those doctrinal errors…

Typical, I’m sure you know you are attacking a straw man.

 

[jmcrae]

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.

And then the red herring of Galileo pops up, thus distracting everyone from the fact that the Protestants have no rational response to the original question.

Interesting

Yup.

 

[Stephen168]

And then the red herring of Galileo pops up, thus distracting everyone from the fact that the Protestants have no rational response to the original question.

Yup.

As a first century Christian, I would follow Paul because Christ sent the Twelve, and the Twelve sent Paul. As a 21st century Christian, I follow my Bishop for basically the same reason.
Protestants seem to reject that reasoning but don’t have anything to replace it with, so maybe that is why 7 of 9 had no answer.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

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.

I still don’t see where you outlined the theological implications. If the church doesn’t have a literalist interpretation then what is the theological implication?

 

[Stephen168]

And then the red herring of Galileo pops up, thus distracting everyone from the fact that the Protestants have no rational response to the original question.

I think you’re right!!

 

[Radical]

I think you’re right!!

Sorry, I just wanted to make sure that I that I had this right…Is it that Stephen168 is calling the play-by-play with Jmcrae providing the colour commentary…or is it the other way around?