September 20, 2010 – 1 Thessalonians 1-2
If you read the introduction and the sections of Acts it talks about you get a sense of when Paul wrote this letter. Paul was beaten and imprisoned in Phillpi and let out after the earthquake had freed them, but they did not escape. If you remember the prison guard was stopped from killing himself by Paul and then converted. After leaving Phillpi, they go to Thessalonica. There, being sought for disturbing the peace, they went to Beroea. From there Paul went to Athens, but Silas and Timothy stayed behind. They were sent back to Thessalonica and caught up again with Paul in Corinth around the year 51. It was after getting the report on Thessalonica that Paul writes this first letter. By everything that I have seen, this is the first of the letters Paul writes, I don’t think I planned it that way, but then again I am not the one in charge.
The beginning is just greeting, but when we get into the second chapter, Paul tells us about his history with them. The verse that jumped out to me in particular was verse 13. Paul gives thanks to God that they have been given the Word of God and that it is at work in them who believe. Be aware of how they received the Word of God. Not through the letter he is sending them, but by “receiving the word of God from hearing [him].” How does the idea of sola scriptura interpret this. Paul is saying that the words he spoke were the actual words of God. In this sentence he not only says that the written word is not the only way God communicates to us, but also that God can speak and teach through humans speaking. If Sola scriptura is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness, how is Paul speaking the Word of God. Logically, if Paul says he was speaking the Word of God, he believes it was without error because there is no error in God. If he believed in the idea of Sola Scriptura would it not say they were saved from the word of God they received from reading his letters. The point is that this verse, in the Bible, I believe, makes a strong case against Sola Scriptura. Looking forward to what everyone has to say about that verse.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14629d.htm
http://www.biblestudy.org/maps/bible-map-apostle-paul-second-missionary-journey.gif
posted by MILK @ 5:26 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
Dr. Milk... I disagree, strongly. I believe that sola scriptura goes along with sola fide and sola gratia. It is by faith, grace and scripture alone that we believe. We teach, believe and confess the things we know and believe from scripture.
My aargument to you would be that Paul was speaking the Word of God from the scriptures. Do you not believe that God can work through us? But, it is through faith, grace and scripture that we know about God.
I believe that God can work through us. And I believe that we know about God through faith, grace and the scriptures. But I will ask you were the scriptures come from. You say that Paul was speaking from the scriptures, what scripture was that. If, and I am going off of what I have read, this is the first letter that Paul wrote, the scriptures as we know them did not all exist yet. If you believe in Sola Scriptura, what authority gave us the New Testament that you believe in. The Catholic Church set down, through the Holy Spirit, the Canon of the Bible. If it had the authority to do that, it has the authority to interpret that scripture. If you do not believe the Catholic Church had the authority to develope the Canon of the Bible, how can you believe in Sola Scripura.
Comment from Shelly on facebook, thought you might be interested in this and my response.
"I've reread this several times and they are sharing the Gospel with them. Even today if you or I were sharing the Gospel with someone we would be sharing the word of God. I really think the actual message of the gospel and salvation is pretty simple. I think the problem with the Catholic church is that over the years they lost focus of sharing this message and caught too caught up in their own rules and interpretations."
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html
Two things. If, when we speak together about God and sharing the Gospel, you would consider that sharing the Word of God, but when the Catholic Church speaks about their interpretation of what the Gospel says, you say it is only human’s speech. There is a disconnect there. If everyone is allowed to talk about the Gospels and interpret them on their own, then the Catholic Church is allowed to do the same.
Second, I think the Catholic Church would love it if they did not have to set down so many rules and interpretations, but they do so to combat what they feel are misinterpretations. You say that over the years the Church has lost focus, but this practice of laying down the Church’s interpretation and rules is not new. From the very beginning the Church has had to defend itself against heresy many, many times. Even in Acts, we saw a disagreement about the teaching on circumcision and its necessity. A list below of early councils and what teaching they were called to combat against. The Church lays out its rules and interpretations to strengthen and guide its followers, not to hinder their growth in relationship to God. The Church’s focus, I believe, is in the saving of souls and they do that by instructing us as to the Church’s interpretation of the Gospels. Looking at the list below, if there had not been a Catholic Church to correct these teachings, where would the Christian faith be as a whole. Jesus would not be considered God, the Holy Spirit would not be God, Mary would not be the Mother of God, Jesus would not be seen as True God and True Man. This is not all the councils and this is only up until 897. If there is not an authority to guide human interpretation of the Scriptures, we can see how things can be spun. When I give a talk in front of people about anything Church related, I pray and hope that I step out of the way and let God speak through me whatever He has to say. How much more does He speak through those in the Church that have been given authority through Christ to feed His sheep.
The First Ecumenical Council was convoked by the Roman Emperor Constantine at Nicaea in 325 and presided over by the Patriarch Alexander of Alexandria, with over 300 bishops condemning the view of Arius that the Son is a created being inferior to the Father.
The Second Ecumenical Council was held at Constantinople in 381, presided over by the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, with 150 bishops, defining the nature of the Holy Spirit against those asserting His inequality with the other persons of the Trinity.
The Third Ecumenical Council is that of Ephesus in 431, presided over by the Patriarch of Alexandria, with 250 bishops, which affirmed that Mary is truly "Birthgiver" or "Mother" of God (Theotokos), contrary to the teachings of Nestorius.
The Fourth Ecumenical Council is that of Chalcedon in 451, Patriarch of Constantinople presiding, 500 bishops, affirmed that Jesus is truly God and truly man, without mixture of the two natures, contrary to Monophysite teaching.
The Fifth Ecumenical Council is the second of Constantinople in 553, interpreting the decrees of Chalcedon and further explaining the relationship of the two natures of Jesus; it also condemned the teachings of Origen on the pre-existence of the soul, etc.
The Sixth Ecumenical Council is the third of Constantinople in 681; it declared that Christ has two wills of his two natures, human and divine, contrary to the teachings of the Monothelites.
The Seventh Ecumenical Council was called under the Empress Regent Irene of Athens in 787, known as the second of Nicaea. It supports the veneration of icons while forbidding their worship. It is often referred to as "The Triumph of Orthodoxy"
The Fourth Council of Constantinople was called in 879. It restored St. Photius to his See in Constantinople and condemned any alteration of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381.
Post a Comment
<< Home