According to Louw-Nida, the adjective πιστὸς has the potential meaning: "pertaining to being trusted - ‘faithful, trustworthy, dependable, reliable.’"
Compare 1 Peter 4:19.
1 Corinthians 4:2 (Greek): ὧδε λοιπὸν ζητεῖται ἐν τοῖς οἰκονόμοις ἵνα πιστός τις εὑρεθῇ.
Paul's use of πιστός in 1 and 2 Corinthians:
1 Corinthians 1:9-πιστὸς ὁ θεὸς δι' οὗ ἐκλήθητε εἰς κοινωνίαν τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν.
1 Corinthians 4:17-Διὰ τοῦτο ἔπεμψα ὑμῖν Τιμόθεον, ὅς ἐστίν μου τέκνον ἀγαπητὸν καὶ πιστὸν ἐν κυρίῳ, ὃς ὑμᾶς ἀναμνήσει τὰς ὁδούς μου τὰς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, καθὼς πανταχοῦ ἐν πάσῃ ἐκκλησίᾳ διδάσκω.
1 Corinthians 7:25-Περὶ δὲ τῶν παρθένων ἐπιταγὴν κυρίου οὐκ ἔχω, γνώμην δὲ δίδωμι ὡς ἠλεημένος ὑπὸ κυρίου πιστὸς εἶναι.
1 Corinthians 10:13-πειρασμὸς ὑμᾶς οὐκ εἴληφεν εἰ μὴ ἀνθρώπινος· πιστὸς δὲ ὁ θεός, ὃς οὐκ ἐάσει ὑμᾶς πειρασθῆναι ὑπὲρ ὃ δύνασθε, ἀλλὰ ποιήσει σὺν τῷ πειρασμῷ καὶ τὴν ἔκβασιν τοῦ δύνασθαι ὑπενεγκεῖν.
2 Corinthians 1:18-πιστὸς δὲ ὁ θεὸς ὅτι ὁ λόγος ἡμῶν ὁ πρὸς ὑμᾶς οὐκ ἔστιν Ναί καὶ Οὔ·
2 Corinthians 6:15-τίς δὲ συμφώνησις Χριστοῦ πρὸς Βελίαρ, ἢ τίς μερὶς πιστῷ μετὰ ἀπίστου;
20 comments:
Duncan, I downloaded that thesis. Thanks.
Dear Mr Foster,
Arguing with an atheist, I received an interesting comment that I had not heard before. Referring to John 21:23, he asserted that "the brethren" there meant the apostles, and that they propagated the erroneous interpretation of Jesus' words mentioned there. My debate partner wanted to draw the conclusion from this that the apostles were neither inspired nor infallible.
What do you think about this?
Dear Nincsnevem, I don't mind pursuing this topic briefly, but don't want to start a papal infallibility discussion at this point.
The apostles as men were totally infallible when it came to general knowledge on things- in those times they would not dare to assert anything different to “mainstream” belief
Jesus was under the same law Moses was. That law ended at the messiahs death.
Anything in that law including writing false things about God would have been a capital offence.
Even Jesus’ opponents semi acknowledged this multiple times are recorded In John alone.. ( read context around John 8:54)
People already wanted to stone Jesus for apparently making himself equal to God ( his Father) or as Hippolytus literally writes “a god” ( a representative of God - positive or negative doesn’t matter, these gods are “shiliach tools” not deities)
Look at the error they made at seeing who was “greater” - is this Christian? No far from it
“Inspired” - yes would totally agree with you here to claim they are not inspired is erroneous purely based on Jobs description of the water cycle and Isaiah’s description of the earth as circular ( or a sphere) alone
Considering the time, without a living God ( how could an idol give this revelation?) how could Job have known this?
I would be shocked if it was a random guess.. that’s 1/ a billion odds ( hyperbole, someone can do the math if they want)
- but there are other things to consider aswell anyone can claim to be inspired (or anointed)- doesn’t mean it is nessacarily true of the one making the claim.
“τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν.”
Random observation: why do we read this as “ of the son of him Jesus Christ the lord of us”
And not “ of the son of him of Jesus Christ of the Lord of us”
Is it because 2 titles are appositional to a proper name and are in the same case?
Realise this is off topic
Anonymous, I think you are correct about the grammar. It's appositional and genitival.
I was not talking about the *papal* infallibility, the subject of discussion here was not a specific Catholic view, but rather the inspiredness and infallibility of *the apostles*.
The process of inspiration does not imply that the prophet would have an infallible understanding of what the Spirit inspires him to speak or write.
Daniel ch.12:8,9NKJV"Although I heard, I did not understand. Then I said, “My lord, what shall be the end of these things?”
9And he said, “Go your way, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. "
I replied that it is true that "adelphoi" (brethen) *generally* means the twelve disciples according to the standard terminology of the Gospels, and only in the Acts of the Apostles does this term appear for the faithful in general, but the text does not suggest that here "brethen" specifically means the 7 apostles present, and the chapter 21 of the Gospel of John is supposed to be John's later addition, and thus, based on the later, usual terminology in Acts, rather the means the believers in geleral, not the the apostles.
Thus the example of John 21:20-23 does not show an error originating from the apostles, but rather illustrates that a misunderstanding may have occurred among the faithful regarding the words of Jesus. The text does not state that this false interpretation was propagated by the apostles, but only that "it was reported among the brethren that" etc. Nor does the text suggest that this was a general or majority opinion among the faithful, only that there was such an idea.
I think the inspiration of the Old Testament prophets only applied to the writing of the given book, but compared to them the apostles received "extra" promises such as John 14:26 and Mt 28:20. So, since they received the Holy Spirit, there can be no mistake, misinterpretation, or misunderstanding of the inspired teaching.
1Corinthians ch.13:9NLT"Now our knowledge is partial and incomplete, and even the gift of prophecy reveals only part of the whole picture!"
They would have what they needed for the present, but the book of Daniel indicated that there would come a GRADUAL increase understanding of prophecy.
Daniel ch.12:10NIV"Many will be purified, made spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the wicked will understand, but those who are wise will understand."
The decision to invite uncircumcised Gentiles into the church for example was linked to a clearer understanding of prophecy.
See acts ch.15:14-18. So the understanding would come not all at once but at JEHOVAH'S Decree.
While it's true that a prophet or apostle might not fully comprehend everything they are inspired to write or speak, this does not mean they made errors in their teaching. As I pointed out, John 14:26 and Matthew 28:20 contain promises from Jesus that the Holy Spirit would remind the apostles of everything He had taught them and that He would be with them always. These promises ensure that the apostles’ teachings are inspired and free from error.
You mentioned 1 Corinthians 13:9 and Daniel 12:8-10 to argue that understanding would increase gradually over time. However, this does not imply that the apostles misunderstood or erred in their fundamental teachings. In fact, Acts 15 shows that the apostles, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, made a decision regarding the inclusion of Gentiles, which was in line with the fulfillment of prophecy, not a correction of a previous mistake.
It is important to note that in 1 Corinthians 13:9, Paul is speaking about the limitations of human knowledge and prophecy in a general sense, not specifically about himself or the apostles. He uses the first-person plural to describe the condition of all believers, emphasizing that complete knowledge will only come in the eschaton, not that the apostles were prone to error in their teachings.
The Christian faith is fundamentally based on the teachings of the apostles, who were directly taught and inspired by Jesus. If the apostles had erred in their teachings, the foundation of Christian doctrine would be unstable. However, the consistent testimony of Scripture and tradition affirms that the apostles’ teachings were reliable and inspired by the Holy Spirit.
My problem with this response is that the scripture account is very light on detail,thus you can assert that your claim is true but you really can't demonstrate it to be the case and if you press the matter you end up sounding dogmatic. The real issue is the claim that divine inspiration necessitates an immediate plenary understanding of the inspired utterance or text, it seems easier to make the case that this has simply never been the case.
The Christian faith is based on the Bible, JEHOVAH God and his son ensure that we have sufficient understanding of It for our present needs but a study of the sacred history makes it clear that JEHOVAH'S People have never had a plenary understanding of the sacred text.
The context of 1Corinthians ch.13:9 is the gifts of the Holy Spirit so no,our brother Paul is not speaking about human prophecy(?) Or human knowledge.
Here you try to slip into the interpretation the principle of the WTS-like "new light" (no one noticed for 1900 years that Christ's parousia can be calculated for 1914, and there are two types of redemption castes in the framework of the NT, etc.).
But "not fully understood" is not the same as "misunderstood".
On the other hand, the development of Catholic dogma development is subject to the principle of doctrinal continuity, as Vincent of Lerinum summarizes this idea well when he says: "Let us take great care to confess what was believed everywhere, always and by all (quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus)'.
As I said earlier, this thread should noot become about papal infallibility, but I wonder what you think of the Catholic historian Brian Tierney, Nincsnevem. Please see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2012/10/historian-brian-tierney-on-papal.html
According to the Wikipedia article regarding Tierney:
The most controversial of Tierney's works was Origins of Papal Infallibility, 1150-1350, first published in 1972. The definition of papal infallibility promulgated at the Vatican Council of 1870 declared that the infallibility of the pope was a part of "the ancient and constant faith of the church." Tierney asserted that there was no historical evidence for the existence of the doctrine before about 1300 and that then it "was invented by a few dissident Franciscans."
In addressing the claims made by Brian Tierney regarding the origins of papal infallibility, it's important to recognize several key points that challenge his assertion that the doctrine was "invented" by a few dissident Franciscans around 1300.
While Tierney argues that there is no evidence for the doctrine of papal infallibility before 1300, a closer examination of Church history reveals a continuous development of the concept of papal authority and infallibility long before the 14th century. The roots of papal infallibility can be traced back to the early Church, where the authority of the bishop of Rome was increasingly recognized as holding a special role in safeguarding the unity and orthodoxy of Christian doctrine.
Early Church Fathers such as St. Irenaeus and St. Augustine acknowledged the unique role of the Roman See in preserving the true faith. St. Irenaeus, writing in the 2nd century, emphasized the necessity of unity with the Church of Rome to maintain doctrinal integrity. This recognition of the primacy of the Roman bishop set the groundwork for the later formalization of papal infallibility. Additionally, the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD famously declared, "Peter has spoken through Leo," affirming the authority of the pope in defining Christological doctrine.
The Catholic understanding of doctrinal development, as articulated by theologians such as St. John Henry Newman, posits that doctrines can evolve in their expression and understanding over time while remaining faithful to the original deposit of faith. Papal infallibility, as defined in 1870, represents a culmination of this development, rather than a sudden invention. The Church sees this as a deeper articulation of a truth that was implicitly understood and practiced in earlier centuries, even if not formally defined.
Tierney’s assertion that the doctrine was invented by dissident Franciscans around 1300 oversimplifies the complex historical and theological developments that led to the formal definition of papal infallibility. The Franciscan debates of the 13th and 14th centuries were part of a broader discussion about the nature of ecclesiastical authority, but they were not the origin of the concept of infallibility. Instead, these debates contributed to a growing theological reflection that eventually culminated in the Vatican I definition.
The First Vatican Council (1869-1870) did not "create" the doctrine of papal infallibility out of thin air. Rather, it codified and clarified a belief that had been developing over centuries. The council fathers viewed their definition as a necessary response to the challenges of modernity and as a continuation of the Church’s mission to preserve and teach the faith definitively.
Tierney’s work, while influential, has been met with significant criticism from other historians and theologians who argue that his conclusions are based on a selective reading of historical sources and an underestimation of the theological continuity within the Church. Many scholars assert that the development of the doctrine of papal infallibility is more complex and nuanced than Tierney suggests.
In conclusion, while Tierney raises provocative points about the historical development of papal infallibility, his assertion that the doctrine was merely an invention of the 14th century does not withstand closer scrutiny. The doctrine, as defined by the First Vatican Council, is the result of a long historical and theological development that finds its roots in the early Church and its recognition of the unique authority of the Roman pontiff.
I was not talking specifically about *papal* infallibility here, but about whether John 21:23 proves that the apostles spread a wrong interpretation of Christ's words.
Post a Comment