Posted on 08/07/2009 9:00:03 AM PDT by Teófilo
First biblical numerical claims are often exaggerated, contradictory or even impossible. They simply cannot be taken on their face value. We have one instance where Peter was addressing thousands of people without a microphone or a megaphone. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that not all these people could have heard what he was saying.
Second, the Jerusalem church was pretty much routed after the stoning of James c. AD 64. We also know that followers of Jesus were being thrown out of synagogues (as Jesus told them they would be) in Israel, and actively persecuted by the Jews (Paul being a witness to that), as well as the Romans.
Third, even if 3,000 converts did exist, how does that number stack against those who rejected Christianity? Judaism even officially rejected Christianity and Christian books in Jamnia, so—as such—Christianity never took any roots in Israel as long as it was in Jewish hands. The Church was effectively dead. It's only chance of surviving was for Paul to sell the story to the pagan Greeks.
Acts records “1Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews...
I am not sure what this is supposed to prove. Thessaloniki is in Greece, not Israel. And if Paul was allegedly reasoning from the scriptures in the synagogue there that “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ” I really wonder what passages was he using to show them that this is who claimed Jesus was. Of the seven biblically established requirements for a Jewish messiah, Jesus fulfilled one—being Jewish!
And what is "great many?" How many Jews lived in Thessaloniki and how many could fit into the synagogue? And what were the "devout" Greeks doing in Jewish synagogues, and since when did Jewish women count form much in those days? The whole story is so blatantly naïve that it's almost comical, let alone believable.
More important, “15As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning...And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.”
How did he know the Holy Spirit fell on them? Was he hallucinating in another trance as in verse 5, or seeing an angel standing in his house, as in verse 11, combining visual with auditory hallucinations? So I am sure he also "saw" the Holy Spirit "fall on them" too.
Obviously, when the Book of Acts was written it was written not for the Jews but for the Greeks, with the express purpose to convince the Greeks that they were included in God's plan as well, because Jesus surely never, ever taught anything even remotely close, or hinted at such a ridiculous aspect of his mission on earth!
The question wasn’t number of converts, but who was first in line.
The question was who was left in line. The Church was catering to them and Acts in particular makes sure the story reflects that necessity.
How about the human understanding of murder, theft, adultery, etc. prior to the Noachide laws and the Ten Commandments? Were these not sins until formalized by God? That is that from Adam to Noah no man could be condemned for these sins.
Are you saying that Noah and Moses received new revelation not previously known to mankind? How would this affect the sinning by those outside of the Israelite context, i.e. Chinese, Egyptians, the whole rest of the world. Are they not under condemnation for sin?
If tradition controls interpretation of scripture, then tradition rules scripture.
Isn't there Protestant tradition partly borrowed from existing Catholic tradition?
Also, do any of the founders of Protestantism (is that insulting, do you prefer Reformers?) claim to be prophets, that is do Luther, Calvin, Smyth, Zwingli, et al claim to have received revelation for God applicable beyond themselves to the entire world?
Some from the pre-schism Church (when the Latin Catholics split from the Orthodox), such as the Trinity. But not really too many beyond that stated in the Nicene Creed.
Also, do any of the founders of Protestantism (is that insulting, do you prefer Reformers?) claim to be prophets, that is do Luther, Calvin, Smyth, Zwingli, et al claim to have received revelation for God applicable beyond themselves to the entire world?
Nope. The Bible claims that it is sufficient for all understanding needed for salvation and how to live a Godly life. We take that to heart.
I think that I explained the Natural Law very badly if you ask this.
Yes, any form of offending God, including murder, theft and adultery are violations of Natural Law and so are sins and have been even before the flood. The cause of the flood is God's regret of making man in the face of the sins of man (Gen 6:5f).
It is because Natural Law is sufficiently clear that the Chinese, Egyptians, the whole rest of the world indeed are under condemnation for sin.
The role of written revelations of biblical laws is to shape a Kingdom of God, step by step, starting with the Jews and then including the Christian Gentiles. It builds upon the Natural Law. It doesn't excuse anyone who did not receive the written revelation (again, Romans 2, especially 12-15).
The Bible doesn't.
On the broader issue, indeed neither of the original leaders of the Reformation styled themselves prophets (from 19c onward, there were some offshoots of Protestantism like that, but we don't need to focus on them).
However, not only some foundational traditions but also the Christian Scripture itself was received by the Reformation from the Catholic Church. While not claiming prophetic powers, the leaders of the Reformation introduced to their flock a particular interpretation of some verses, and they explained away some other verses, and denied some teaching of the Church in the manner contrary to the Catholic and Orthodox doctrines, and so they most certainly established new traditions. For example, replacing sacramental priests with ministers, explaining some sacraments as mere manifestation of inner acts of faith, and doing away with other sacraments, the very teaching that Bible alone is sufficient for all spiritual matters, the multiplication of denominations -- all these are traditions introduced by the reformers.
14You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them,15and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
Seems that the Bible states that it is inspired by God and is all you need to be equipped for teaching, righteousness, in fact every good work.
That passage says that the scripture is, of course, inspired and “profitable”; some translate that as “useful”. St. Paul did not say that the scripture is also sufficient. Indeed, the letter several times also mentions oral teaching, including in verse 14. In that context, it is clear that the scripture adds to other schooling, and this combination of tradition and scripture produces a fully equipped clergy.
Verses 16 and 17 plainly state that Scripture is adequate to be equipped for every good work, to be a Christian.
And note that 14 also states plainly that what Timothy had learned since childhood is all sufficient for salvation.
Anything added beyond the Scriptures may HELP you reach salvation, and can help you understand Scripture. But - per Scripture (verse 14-17)- it is not necessary. It is extra-Scriptural and not required for salvation.
I do not deny that many of the writings of the early church fathers, or even modern theologians are beneficial and wholesome to read! However, they add nothing more, and cannot offer any additional information required for salvation. The Scriptures are all-sufficient, per the Scriptures themselves.
You just cited it. It doesn't say "adequate". It says "profitable".
See verse 17; I see the word adequate right there.
Yes, but that describes the clergyman, not the scripture.
See verse 16; Scripture equips the man of God (not necessarily a preacher, but anyone who spreads the Good News). He is adequate and prepared by Scripture.
I know, you won’t accept this, that’s fine. It’s in the Catechism to deny sola scriptura, thus you cannot accept the words in the Bible stating as much. That’s fine. I’ll just leave it there for you to consider.
But it doesn’t say the scripture is sufficient to thus equip the man of God. It says it is profitable or useful to that end. The passage doesn’t say that the scripture is the only thing useful, and the rest of the letter likewise reminds Timothy of the oral teaching he received. The Catholic Church teaches exactly what this passage says.
This passage says the teachings and writings known to Timothy are sufficient; anything since then is not needed, according to the Scriptures.
***The Bible claims that it is sufficient for all understanding needed for salvation and how to live a Godly life.***
Where? The Bible claims that the Church is the foundation and pillar of Truth, not itself. Jesus tells us to go to the Church; the example of the eunuch tells that Scripture is insufficient for men not taught by the Church.
What passages do you have that claim Biblical sufficiency?
Read post 667. I’ve shown you this dozens of times and each time you simply ignore it. No surprise...
Correct, the oral teaching and the scripture are together sufficient to perfect the clergyman, exactly what the Catholic Church teaches.
At the time of Timothy; no more teaching and Scripture is required...
to perfect the clergyman
And where is that found? I see man of God, we are all men of God, we are all called to spread His Word. I do not see a restriction in that verse to clergy!
exactly what the Catholic Church teaches
Except the Catholic Church has added theology and teachings beyond that which existed for Timothy, and claims that it must be accepted as inerrant.
***Read post 667. I’ve shown you this dozens of times and each time you simply ignore it. No surprise...***
You have not shown me this dozens of times. I don’t remember you showing me this more than once and I showed you the error of it then. If you wish, let us go through the lesson again:
14You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them,
15and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
Let us make note of the point that the sacred writings here are the OT and that the OT is there to give wisdom. Paul is trying to sell the new religion to the Gentiles in Ephesus. And, he is also trying to convince Timothy to set up succession for himself, as he set Timothy up to replace himself. Paul is writing from imprisonment in Rome, to set the stage.
16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
All Scripture is inspired by God. As the Councils decreed. So that every man may be adequate, equipped for every good work. But the Reformation has denied the importance of good works. Therefore, with nothing referencing salvation, one’s soul, or eternal life with God, where is your basis now? Good works are minimized in the Reformers’ eyes. Where is Biblical sufficiency for other than the filthy rags?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.