Calvin, Conversions, and Catholicity
July 10, 2009
Jordan J. Ballor
Since the sixteenth century, conversions and counter-conversions between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism have been the stuff of controversy, polemic, and recrimination. The Lutheran-Catholic concord on the formula cuius regio, eius religio virtually guaranteed the escalation of political strife as parties competed for sovereignty. With the emancipation of church from state in the post-Reformation era, churches in North America have inherited a rather different set of implications for the conversion of political figures. When Newt Gingrich announced earlier this year that he had converted to Roman Catholicism, and when news broke in 2002 that Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas had done the same, relatively few outside of the Beltway took more than passing notice.
High-profile conversions of public intellectuals, theologians, and academics have been the cause of some consternation, however, at least in ecclesiastical circles. The steady stream of recognizable Protestants heading to Rome (or perhaps somewhat less often to the East) since the 1960s has mirrored the decline of the mainline Protestant churches, as documented by First Things editor Joseph Bottum. But it is not just the mainline churches that are losing noteworthy adherents.
In 2005 the noted historian of American religion Mark A. Noll and journalist Carolyn Nystrom could seriously ask of evangelicals whether or not the Reformation was over. And in 2007 then-president of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) Francis Beckwith announced he had returned to the Roman Catholic Church. (Subsequently Beckwith resigned his position amidst questions over the compatibility of Roman Catholicism and the ETS. Beckwith’s memoir had the rather provocative subtitle, Why the President of the Evangelical Theological Society Left His Post and Returned to the Catholic Church.)
Similar conversion accounts could be multiplied. But as a Protestant and evangelical theologian myself, I am more concerned to address some of the responses to such conversions by those left behind. Among these is the book, Is Rome the True Church? A Consideration of the Roman Catholic Claim, by Norman L. Geisler, formerly president and dean of the Southern Evangelical Seminary, and Joshua M. Betancourt, an Anglican minister. This book is undoubtedly one that as Betancourt says in an interview, “no thinking Protestant—or Catholic—should be without,” and whose whole argument ought to be considered with close attention. But here I want to focus on just one of the reasons Geisler and Betancourt cite for the conversion of evangelicals to Roman Catholicism: antiquity.
As Betancourt says, “converts appeal to the Catholic Church’s antiquity,” reasoning that “since the Protestant tradition is only as old as the sixteenth-century Reformation, then it cannot be the true expression of the early apostolic faith and tradition.” The strategy of Betancourt and Geisler to answer this reason is to contend that “truth is not determined by age. To say so is to commit the fallacy of 'chronological snobbery.’”
The problem with this kind of answer is that the Reformers themselves could be accused of just such chronological snobbery. The Zurich reformer Heinrich Bullinger published a treatise in 1539 titled Der alt gloub (translated into English by Miles Coverdale as The Old Faith in 1541). In his treatment of the topic De nova doctrina (“On new doctrine”), the Bernese reformer Wolfgang Musculus writes, “For it is so ordered by God in all cases of all things, that the truth is more ancient than the falsehood, even like as God is more ancient than the Devil.” Perhaps not surprisingly, theologians in the British Isles in particular seemed quite concerned to defend the antiquity and catholicity of the Reformed faith, as evidenced by such treatises as William Perkins’ A Reformed Catholic (1597) and the Huguenot Isaac Casaubon’s reply in 1612 to Cardinal Perron, published later as Anglican Catholicity Vindicated against Roman Innovations. In 1565 John Jewel, bishop of Salisbury, would assail “the weak, and unstable grounds of the Roman religion, which of late hath been accompted Catholic.”
But given that today is his 500th birthday, pride of place must be given to John Calvin and his emphasis on the provenance of the Reformed faith. His reply to a letter from Cardinal Jacopo Sadoleto in 1539 was not only a propounding cause for his later return to Geneva from exile in Strasbourg, but as the late Calvin College professor Lester DeKoster writes, “a kind of charter for the Reformed branch of the Reformation.” Sadoleto had written to Geneva imploring it to come home to the Roman church, “to return to concord with us.” Calvin’s response was taken up at the instigation of the Genevan authorities, and answers Sadoleto’s claims in comprehensive fashion. Calvin’s text runs nearly double the length of Sadoleto’s original missive.
In the course of his reply Calvin contends to Sadoleto, “You are mistaken in supposing that we desire to lead away the people from that method of worshipping God which the Catholic Church always observed.” Calvin’s rhetorical turn here is crucial to understanding his argument. Against Sadoleto’s claims to the contrary, Calvin writes that “all we have attempted has been to renew that ancient form of the Church” as evidenced in the writings of Chrysostom, Basil, Cyprian, Ambrose, and Augustine. Here we see the constant refrain from the Protestant reformers: The evangelical doctrine is not innovation, but is itself the ancient faith of the Church.
In the prefatory letter to his 1536 Institutes addressed to King Francis I of France, Calvin defends the Reformation doctrine against charges of novelty. He does so not by granting its newness and dismissing the point as unimportant, but rather by claiming that the evangelical teaching “has lain long unknown and buried,” and using a legal analogy, that “when it is restored to us by God’s goodness, its claim to antiquity ought to be admitted at least by right of recovery [postliminii iure].”
All of this is not to say that Geisler and Betancourt are wrong to claim that “age does not determine truth.” As Musculus also writes, “It is not then true because it is old.” But at the same time any response to the conversion of Protestants to Roman Catholicism cannot simply abandon or ignore the Reformation’s claims to antiquity, because to do so would be also to undermine its claims to catholicity and to authenticity.
For some these claims may not be convincing. But ultimately they must be accounted for by both Protestant and Roman Catholic alike.
Jordan J. Ballor is a doctoral student in Reformation history at the University of Zurich and moral theology at Calvin Theological Seminary. He also serves as associate editor for the Journal of Markets & Morality.
Comments:
7.10.2009 | 6:44am
Adam Baker says:
I don't know whether the property that former evangelicals are drawn to is antiquity, or continuity. The Church has produced nothing older than Scripture, to which evangelicals adhere. But, I have heard evangelicals dismiss Church Fathers as early as Tertullian -- and they would probably not hesitate to dismiss Polycarp if he had said anything controversial. It's not a small mental endeavor to convince yourself that for twenty centuries the Church entirely misrepresented the teachings of Christ and His apostles, until you yourself picked up the text and miraculously discerned the original intention. I would tend to think that this is what converts are recoiling from.
7.10.2009 | 7:24am
Linda Wolpert Smith says:
In the end, for committed Christians, the question does seem to come down to the sacrament of Holy Orders. Does it effect a change in the "inner man" empowering him - through the power of the Holy Spirit alone - to speak "in persona Christi"? Or not? In others words does God actually act during Mass (as the ancient teachers believed he does). My Protestant friends and I are able to share our love for Scripture. We separate when the question is the nature of the Eucharist. Is it a mystical event or sacrilege?
7.10.2009 | 8:38am
Eric Giunta says:
I believe Geisler and Betancourt are safer with the approach they have taken, as Protestantism so clearly flounders on any claim to be the historic Christian faith.
And I don't believe I am uncharitable for saying so.
The only way one can possibly claim Fathers such as Augustine and Chryostom for themselves is by cherry-picking and decontextualizing their words, or by failing to take into account the (equally ancient) doctrine of doctrinal-development. We should not expect to find in the Fathers a carbon-copy of the modern Catholic faith, but rather a seminal form of it. And that we do.
In their notion of what constitutes the Word of God (not "Scripture Alone"), how Christians are to know what this Word is (the Magisterium), the Fathers are thoroughly Catholic. Their worship is liturgical, their sacramental theology is realist, and they never for a moment countenance the claim that the true Church is spread across different denominations with competing creeds, sacraments, and ecclesiologies.
Unless, of course, one wants to consider early heretics such as the Donatists and Gnostics as "Church Fathers." Among the early heresies you do indeed find precursors to Protestant dogma, though not the same combination of doctrines one finds today in the Protestant denominations.
None of which is not to say that the Catholic Church's are beyond criticism, least of all from the Orthodox. But for a Protestant to claim the early Church for himself is just intellectually dishonest.
In my humble opinion.
Secondly, it seems to me that while normally one must avoid the chronological fallacy when advancing a truth-claim, historical longevity has implications for a religion like Christianity, and is far from irrelevant. Once one accepts the premise that God has revealed himself IN HISTORY, and founded a church at some definite historical moment, and endowed that community with authority to teach in his name, and furthermore promised that this church would survive until the end of time, then historical longevity is VERY relevant to a discussion such as Which Is the True Church
No?
And I don't believe I am uncharitable for saying so.
The only way one can possibly claim Fathers such as Augustine and Chryostom for themselves is by cherry-picking and decontextualizing their words, or by failing to take into account the (equally ancient) doctrine of doctrinal-development. We should not expect to find in the Fathers a carbon-copy of the modern Catholic faith, but rather a seminal form of it. And that we do.
In their notion of what constitutes the Word of God (not "Scripture Alone"), how Christians are to know what this Word is (the Magisterium), the Fathers are thoroughly Catholic. Their worship is liturgical, their sacramental theology is realist, and they never for a moment countenance the claim that the true Church is spread across different denominations with competing creeds, sacraments, and ecclesiologies.
Unless, of course, one wants to consider early heretics such as the Donatists and Gnostics as "Church Fathers." Among the early heresies you do indeed find precursors to Protestant dogma, though not the same combination of doctrines one finds today in the Protestant denominations.
None of which is not to say that the Catholic Church's are beyond criticism, least of all from the Orthodox. But for a Protestant to claim the early Church for himself is just intellectually dishonest.
In my humble opinion.
Secondly, it seems to me that while normally one must avoid the chronological fallacy when advancing a truth-claim, historical longevity has implications for a religion like Christianity, and is far from irrelevant. Once one accepts the premise that God has revealed himself IN HISTORY, and founded a church at some definite historical moment, and endowed that community with authority to teach in his name, and furthermore promised that this church would survive until the end of time, then historical longevity is VERY relevant to a discussion such as Which Is the True Church
No?
7.10.2009 | 9:39am
George says:
The Protestant Reformers claimed that their creed was a retrieval of "primitive Christianity"--i.e., the Church prior to Constantine. Newman, whose conversion to Catholicism was largely influenced by his close study of the early Church had this to say in response: "Take a large view of the faith of Christians during the centuries before Constantine established their religion. Is there any family likeness in it to Protestantism? Look at it as existing during that period in different countries, and is it not one and the same, and a reiteration of itself, as well as singularly unlike Reformed Christianity? Hermas with is visions, Ignatius with his dogmatism, Irenaeus with his praise of tradition and of the Roman See, Clement with his allegory and mysticism, Cyprian with his 'Out of the Church is no salvation', and Methodius with his praise of virginity, all of them writers between the first and fourth centuries. and witnesses of the faith of Rome, Africa, Gaul, Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt, certainly do not represet the opinions of Luther and Calvin. They stretch over the whole of Christendom; they are consistent with each other; they coalesce into one religion; but it is not the religion of the Reformation." (Historical Sketches, vol. 1)
7.10.2009 | 11:13am
ND says:
In response to Eric Giunta's comment that the Eastern Orthodox have legitimate criticisms of the Catholic view of the one true Church, I have a couple questions.
(1) How do the Eastern Orthodox deal with the apparent fact that those Christians from the East who were not heretics (not arians or monophysites) made numerous statements of allegiance to the Roman Church, especially from the time of the Council of Chalcedon onwards? The claim that the Eastern Orthodox make, of being the legitimate Church of the first seven ecumenical councils, seems difficult to reconcile with the large number of statements asserting various types of primacy of the Bishop of Rome on doctrinal matters -- none of which seem to be accepted by Easterns today. The claim that "the Bishop of Rome's authority was resisted" seems to be especially true of people that modern Easterns would call heretics. The only way out of this difficulty for the Easterns must be a claim that the Popes ought today to have the type of authority that the non-heterodox Easterns used to publicly admit, but that since the Pope became a heretic, that authority was lost. Of course, this raises problems of how the Pope can be a heretic if he's the one whom their Eastern ancestors admitted had a primacy in doctrinal matters -- a primacy so great that it included essentially forcing the key Easterns against their will to reject the monophysite heresy. In short, the modern Eastern Orthodox seem to be rejecting both the main rationale for believing in the legitimacy of the results of the Council of Chalcedon, as well as their own orthodox ancestors' startling statements of allegiance to the Pope on doctrinal matters. They are siding, in the latter case, with the views of the papacy of the very heretics that the modern Orthodox would especially like to reject.
(2) If this reconciliation is indeed difficult, it it not in some ways more difficult than the reconciliation of history with the Protestant claims? At least with those Protestants who assume an immediate post-apostolic departure from legitimate Christianity. With such an assumption, those affirmations of the Pope's authority from members of the Eastern Church who were not arians or monophysites become irrelevant. There is no orthodoxy to be found in history, so why trouble ourselves that our own views on the papacy look like those of ancient arians or monophysites. We can affirm the divinity of Christ and his two natures without embarassment.
Not that I buy the idea of an immediate post-apostolic departure from the truth of Christ, but at least it is a convenient assumption, and makes for a cleaner break with Rome than the Orthodox can manage.
(1) How do the Eastern Orthodox deal with the apparent fact that those Christians from the East who were not heretics (not arians or monophysites) made numerous statements of allegiance to the Roman Church, especially from the time of the Council of Chalcedon onwards? The claim that the Eastern Orthodox make, of being the legitimate Church of the first seven ecumenical councils, seems difficult to reconcile with the large number of statements asserting various types of primacy of the Bishop of Rome on doctrinal matters -- none of which seem to be accepted by Easterns today. The claim that "the Bishop of Rome's authority was resisted" seems to be especially true of people that modern Easterns would call heretics. The only way out of this difficulty for the Easterns must be a claim that the Popes ought today to have the type of authority that the non-heterodox Easterns used to publicly admit, but that since the Pope became a heretic, that authority was lost. Of course, this raises problems of how the Pope can be a heretic if he's the one whom their Eastern ancestors admitted had a primacy in doctrinal matters -- a primacy so great that it included essentially forcing the key Easterns against their will to reject the monophysite heresy. In short, the modern Eastern Orthodox seem to be rejecting both the main rationale for believing in the legitimacy of the results of the Council of Chalcedon, as well as their own orthodox ancestors' startling statements of allegiance to the Pope on doctrinal matters. They are siding, in the latter case, with the views of the papacy of the very heretics that the modern Orthodox would especially like to reject.
(2) If this reconciliation is indeed difficult, it it not in some ways more difficult than the reconciliation of history with the Protestant claims? At least with those Protestants who assume an immediate post-apostolic departure from legitimate Christianity. With such an assumption, those affirmations of the Pope's authority from members of the Eastern Church who were not arians or monophysites become irrelevant. There is no orthodoxy to be found in history, so why trouble ourselves that our own views on the papacy look like those of ancient arians or monophysites. We can affirm the divinity of Christ and his two natures without embarassment.
Not that I buy the idea of an immediate post-apostolic departure from the truth of Christ, but at least it is a convenient assumption, and makes for a cleaner break with Rome than the Orthodox can manage.
7.10.2009 | 12:46pm
Matt says:
Indeed, many of the magisterial Protestants did not locate a break with apostolic truth with Constantine. The role of the Emperor was ambiguous in early Protestant historiography. Some even saw the imperial office as the one bulwark against the influence of the papacy in what we call Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. Though I am myself Catholic (of the Roman variety), I am continually struck with the catholic vision of history of early magisterial Protestantism. Interlocutors here interested in the English case may enjoy the work of Anthony Milton, Catholic and Reformed, though Richard Muller is, of course, the master of this field. He shows continuity of the Reformed tradition with medieval scholasticism, let alone the early church Fathers!
7.10.2009 | 12:51pm
Francis Beckwith says:
My dear friend Norm Geisler and his co-author, Mr. Betancourt, seem to misunderstand the Catholic argument. It is not that the Catholic faith is true because it is old. Rather, it is old because it is true. That is, the argument is an argument from the organic continuity of institution, faith, creed, and Scripture over time. It is not, and has never been, an argument from mere antiquity.
Geisler himself, ironically, argues in much the same way in his defense of the authenticity and accuracy of the NT documents. He offers several arguments to show that the late dating of them by liberal scholars is mistaken. But if "old" does not equal "true," why should that matter? Unless, of course, his claim is made more plausible if the document in question is chronologically closer to the events it claims to describe, as well as consistent with, and supports, late creedal affirmations and developments by the Church, e.g., the Trinity, Christ's deity, etc. That is no more "chronological snobbery" than is the employment of math to solve a problem in arithmetic "numerical prejudice."
Geisler himself, ironically, argues in much the same way in his defense of the authenticity and accuracy of the NT documents. He offers several arguments to show that the late dating of them by liberal scholars is mistaken. But if "old" does not equal "true," why should that matter? Unless, of course, his claim is made more plausible if the document in question is chronologically closer to the events it claims to describe, as well as consistent with, and supports, late creedal affirmations and developments by the Church, e.g., the Trinity, Christ's deity, etc. That is no more "chronological snobbery" than is the employment of math to solve a problem in arithmetic "numerical prejudice."
7.10.2009 | 1:11pm
Sheldon Mann says:
Just some thoughts: Does not Luther and Calvin have a legitimate claim to the early Church Fathers as our Catholic brothers? They were not against the Catholic Church per se, but only the gross hermeneutic that was administered for selfish purposes either by commission or omission. Their call was for repentance and their protest was just; God used it as a corrective measure. All of us, both Catholic and Protestant have a spiritual lineage that can be traced back to Christ and the Disciples, it is not an exclusive club. It is only insofar as one comes to Jesus Christ by faith alone (Ephesian 2:8-9). How many Councils were there to work out theologies such as the dual nature of Christ, the Trinity or "Theostokos?" Our faith has been passed down to us through good and faithful men and we would do well to listen to the past, more importantly to the Spirit of God who now dwells within us. Need I remind my Protestant brothers of the mess we have made?!
7.10.2009 | 6:17pm
Ronald Damon says:
As someone that feels equally comfortable in the Roman Catholic (my birth church) and the orthodox Presbyterian Church (my wife's adopted church), my own observation is that I think that the Roman church added too much but the Reformers cut out too much. One doesn't have to look too hard to see that some Popes acted extremely sinfully and abused their powers and acted more out of self interest than in service to God (e.g. when the three Popes excommunicated each other). The Roman church is strongly conservative. That's its strength, but also its weakness, if something bad slips in, it'll stay forever.
Reformers cannot claim a clean history either, either morally or doctrinally -- discarding clear teachings on divorce and the assumption that Christians would fast (Matthew 6:16-17) simply because they didn't feel it should apply. Reformers are inherent critics that want to get back to what's truly important and not what appears to be important simply because "that's how we've always done things". The key problem is, Reformers often don't know when to stop reforming and can sometimes throw out the baby with the bath water and the baby bath tub because all that counts is that you intended to wash the baby.
But both sorts of fallibility to be expected. People are fallible, and any church run by people is inherently fallible. This is true even with people who are closest to God. Other than Jesus, there isn't a person in the Bible who has not sinned.
I don't, however, believe that God would let his people fall too far away, and I honestly think that the Reformers were God's way of correcting the Roman church, and the Roman church is God's way of ensuring that the Reformers don't drift too far on the minimalist side. When the both sides answer God's call, they come up with unexpected affirmations like "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" which showed that both sides were wrong in their "official affirmation" but right in their actual practice of faith.
As someone who sees both sides of the fence, I see many such differences that are not real differences in practice. Protestants have "prayer teams". Why? Aren't your prayers good enough? No, but people feel more comfortable letting someone whom they think can "pray better" can help with their petition. Roman Catholics often pray to saints. Why? Can the saints do anything other than pray to God on your behalf? No. If you dig deep enough, it's the same reason as the Protestants. But both sides haven't really thought out the motivations for their practices. Personally, I believe that a prayer with "broken and a contrite heart" as is repeated often in the Bible, is more important than the prayers of a thousand more Godly people than oneself. But like Parable of the Persistent Widow I do think there is ground for belief that the prayers of others does help.
There may even be common ground in things that shock Protestants such as prayers for the dead. While most Protestants disavow purgatory, most Protestants (especially the Calvinists) will agree that God is outside of time and thus knows what you will do tomorrow before you do it. Thus a prayer you do tomorrow may have an effect on something that happened today, and a prayer for someone who has long died ago might have an effect on that person while they were alive. The mechanism of the prayer is different, but the ultimate effect is the same and the ultimate reason for the prayer is the same.
Reformers cannot claim a clean history either, either morally or doctrinally -- discarding clear teachings on divorce and the assumption that Christians would fast (Matthew 6:16-17) simply because they didn't feel it should apply. Reformers are inherent critics that want to get back to what's truly important and not what appears to be important simply because "that's how we've always done things". The key problem is, Reformers often don't know when to stop reforming and can sometimes throw out the baby with the bath water and the baby bath tub because all that counts is that you intended to wash the baby.
But both sorts of fallibility to be expected. People are fallible, and any church run by people is inherently fallible. This is true even with people who are closest to God. Other than Jesus, there isn't a person in the Bible who has not sinned.
I don't, however, believe that God would let his people fall too far away, and I honestly think that the Reformers were God's way of correcting the Roman church, and the Roman church is God's way of ensuring that the Reformers don't drift too far on the minimalist side. When the both sides answer God's call, they come up with unexpected affirmations like "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" which showed that both sides were wrong in their "official affirmation" but right in their actual practice of faith.
As someone who sees both sides of the fence, I see many such differences that are not real differences in practice. Protestants have "prayer teams". Why? Aren't your prayers good enough? No, but people feel more comfortable letting someone whom they think can "pray better" can help with their petition. Roman Catholics often pray to saints. Why? Can the saints do anything other than pray to God on your behalf? No. If you dig deep enough, it's the same reason as the Protestants. But both sides haven't really thought out the motivations for their practices. Personally, I believe that a prayer with "broken and a contrite heart" as is repeated often in the Bible, is more important than the prayers of a thousand more Godly people than oneself. But like Parable of the Persistent Widow I do think there is ground for belief that the prayers of others does help.
There may even be common ground in things that shock Protestants such as prayers for the dead. While most Protestants disavow purgatory, most Protestants (especially the Calvinists) will agree that God is outside of time and thus knows what you will do tomorrow before you do it. Thus a prayer you do tomorrow may have an effect on something that happened today, and a prayer for someone who has long died ago might have an effect on that person while they were alive. The mechanism of the prayer is different, but the ultimate effect is the same and the ultimate reason for the prayer is the same.
7.10.2009 | 6:57pm
John Thayer Jensen says:
I am a Catholic, having been 20 years in a Reformed Church (member of the Reformed Churches of New Zealand). What I suppose converted me (especially through reading Newman's writings) was the note of unity.
My elders in the Reformed Church taught me (I was not brought up as a Christian) the reality of the visible Church and of the reality of church authority - as opposed to the Church as a limiting concept.
I do not know enough of history to know just how many real abuses (I am told there were many) in the Catholic Church of the Renaissance, nor how many of them the Reformers were successful in combatting. I am certain that if there is anything that the ancient Christian Church insisted on, it was the necessity of unity, and indeed of organisational unity.
My elders in the Reformed Church taught me (I was not brought up as a Christian) the reality of the visible Church and of the reality of church authority - as opposed to the Church as a limiting concept.
I do not know enough of history to know just how many real abuses (I am told there were many) in the Catholic Church of the Renaissance, nor how many of them the Reformers were successful in combatting. I am certain that if there is anything that the ancient Christian Church insisted on, it was the necessity of unity, and indeed of organisational unity.
7.10.2009 | 7:05pm
Andrew says:
I don't necessarily disagree with this article; but the major problem, as I see it, is that the Roman Catholic faith is not really the same as it was in the twelfth century, given all of the changes that have been made (in my view deviations from correct doctrine), mostly since the Reformation. At the point, I hardly see the Roman Catholic church as more historical than the Church of England.
7.10.2009 | 7:43pm
George Welborn says:
This article just exposes the lame scholarship of most academics. There were many Christians groups before 325 AD, as demonstrated by the 1500 bishops who were invited to Nicea by Constantine. The Donatists, Montanists, people of the Piedmont, and others were well known to Jerome, Augustine, and others. Yes, being old does not make it TRUE. However modern Catholicism is neither old or TRUE. It is a product of Medieval superstition, mixed with occult leanings, forged decretals and other forged church documents, and confused Church Fathers.
The Reformers understood that the tradition of Catholics, like the tradition of the Pharisee and Sadducee before them, leads people from Christ to dead rituals. It took the Reformers over 200 years to remove the 1300 years of baggage from the Catholic Church. As my former Orthodox priest said, 'Tell me something from Rome that is not a lie'.
Ask yourself how can a church with a 25% homosexual clergy, believing Muslims worship the same god as Catholics, and having removed 3 books from Council of Carthage (397AD) can be the TRUE church? The Catholic Church reminds me of the apostasy that was rampant in the North Kingdom of Israel around 900 to 700 BC.
Ask yourself why the first mention of the Vicar of Christ was by Constantine? And why do the Orthodox say that Peter was Bishop of Antioch, Syria and never of Rome? The Catholic Church has disguised itself as an angel of light, but is bankrupt to its very core. Since scholarship is so lousy in America it is easy for a pseudo-scholar to be duped into believing the lies of Rome.
The Reformers understood that the tradition of Catholics, like the tradition of the Pharisee and Sadducee before them, leads people from Christ to dead rituals. It took the Reformers over 200 years to remove the 1300 years of baggage from the Catholic Church. As my former Orthodox priest said, 'Tell me something from Rome that is not a lie'.
Ask yourself how can a church with a 25% homosexual clergy, believing Muslims worship the same god as Catholics, and having removed 3 books from Council of Carthage (397AD) can be the TRUE church? The Catholic Church reminds me of the apostasy that was rampant in the North Kingdom of Israel around 900 to 700 BC.
Ask yourself why the first mention of the Vicar of Christ was by Constantine? And why do the Orthodox say that Peter was Bishop of Antioch, Syria and never of Rome? The Catholic Church has disguised itself as an angel of light, but is bankrupt to its very core. Since scholarship is so lousy in America it is easy for a pseudo-scholar to be duped into believing the lies of Rome.
7.10.2009 | 8:35pm
Eric Giunta says:
ND:
I for one am Catholic, and find the Catholic arguments more convincing than the Orthodox.
Which does not prevent me from respecting the Orthodox claims, and acknowledging that they surely cannot be so easily dismissed. They have very intelligent responses to the questions you have raised, even as I (and yourself and others) find them ultimately wanting and unpersuasive.
The Orthodox would argue, for instance, that for every Father advancing a Roman primacy, there are just as many who are silent, ambiguous, or even contrarian on the matter, and that furthermore the pre-schism assertions which do exist are often ambiguous, admit of more than one interpretation, and in any event are far from the dogmatic definitions of Vatican I.
Note: I am not advancing those arguments. I'm just saying they exist, and command my respect a lot more than those of the Protestants (as far as historical arguments go).
I happen to believe that the Papacy of the early Church was a seminal version of what Catholics today have, not what the Orthodox have (or would have, if reunion were to occur on their terms). Hence I am Catholic.
I for one am Catholic, and find the Catholic arguments more convincing than the Orthodox.
Which does not prevent me from respecting the Orthodox claims, and acknowledging that they surely cannot be so easily dismissed. They have very intelligent responses to the questions you have raised, even as I (and yourself and others) find them ultimately wanting and unpersuasive.
The Orthodox would argue, for instance, that for every Father advancing a Roman primacy, there are just as many who are silent, ambiguous, or even contrarian on the matter, and that furthermore the pre-schism assertions which do exist are often ambiguous, admit of more than one interpretation, and in any event are far from the dogmatic definitions of Vatican I.
Note: I am not advancing those arguments. I'm just saying they exist, and command my respect a lot more than those of the Protestants (as far as historical arguments go).
I happen to believe that the Papacy of the early Church was a seminal version of what Catholics today have, not what the Orthodox have (or would have, if reunion were to occur on their terms). Hence I am Catholic.
7.11.2009 | 4:18am
Eric Giunta says:
Andrew:
You have to be kidding. The fundamental spiritual orientation of the Church of England is contrary to that of the early Church, indeed orthodox Christianity before the 16th century.
You also fail to take into account doctrinal development, wherein what is implicit in the original deposit of faith becomes explicit over the centuries. The canon of the Bible and Trinitarianism are examples of this, in keeping with the Scriptural descriptions of the Church as a living, growing organism.
Anglicanism is definitely not legitimate development of early Christianity, but rather a mutant, a different creature altogether. Heck, Anglicanism doesn't even have a set doctrine, let alone a consistent one. It's literally as unintelligible as the Gnostic heresies of old in that regard. (I say this in spite of the fact that I am something of an Anglophile with a great respect for what the Anglican religious tradition has bequeathed to Christendom!)
George Welborn:
As far as I am concerned, your entire rant is discredited by your bone-headed assertion that the Orthodox do not believe Peter was ever bishop of Rome. Get back to me after taking a look at the Orthodox liturgical feasts for June 29.
You have to be kidding. The fundamental spiritual orientation of the Church of England is contrary to that of the early Church, indeed orthodox Christianity before the 16th century.
You also fail to take into account doctrinal development, wherein what is implicit in the original deposit of faith becomes explicit over the centuries. The canon of the Bible and Trinitarianism are examples of this, in keeping with the Scriptural descriptions of the Church as a living, growing organism.
Anglicanism is definitely not legitimate development of early Christianity, but rather a mutant, a different creature altogether. Heck, Anglicanism doesn't even have a set doctrine, let alone a consistent one. It's literally as unintelligible as the Gnostic heresies of old in that regard. (I say this in spite of the fact that I am something of an Anglophile with a great respect for what the Anglican religious tradition has bequeathed to Christendom!)
George Welborn:
As far as I am concerned, your entire rant is discredited by your bone-headed assertion that the Orthodox do not believe Peter was ever bishop of Rome. Get back to me after taking a look at the Orthodox liturgical feasts for June 29.
7.11.2009 | 7:00am
George Welborn says:
The Romance languages of southern Europe derived their words for the assembly or community of Christians from the Greek ekkleÝsia. Thus, Spanish has iglesia. On the other hand, the Germans, the Goths, when invading the Greek-speaking peoples, heard the latter refer to their places of Christian worship as “belonging to the Lord” (kyriakon). Not discerning, it seems, the difference between the building and the congregation, these Goths derived their word for both from kyriakon. Thus the German language has Kirche , and the English language has church. The problem is that kyriakon is never used in the Bible, while ekklesia ( assembly) is used over 90 times. The modern assembly is supposed to operate more like a Synagogue than a Temple. This means an assembly, like the Synagogue, does not perform Ministerial Priesthood functions . Furthermore the assembly, like the Jews who were non-sacramental practices Ordinances not Sacraments.
Conclusion: Catholics must constantly harp on the historicity of Catholicism because they have strayed so far from the basic truths of the Bible. Personally. I would rather trust the Bible than Catholic historical revisionism.
Conclusion: Catholics must constantly harp on the historicity of Catholicism because they have strayed so far from the basic truths of the Bible. Personally. I would rather trust the Bible than Catholic historical revisionism.
7.11.2009 | 8:20am
linda wolpert smith says:
One has the sense that this discussion should be taking place within the Church as a family quarrel should take place within the family circle. After reading the interesting commentary, I am still of the opinion that the central question must first be settled: Is Christ sacramentally, mystically, present in his Church through the Holy Spirit and especially in the Eucharist - or not? Christians can differ in various ways without disturbing the deposit of faith, "the divine element that is not subject to reform". The great obstacle to unity seems to be the nature of Eucharist" Who is acting in this breaking of bread: God the Holy Spirit or man (devout, believing man but still man)?
7.11.2009 | 11:36am
Lucy Tucker says:
Here's why the Catholic Church is the one, holy ,catholic and apostolic church established by Christ Himself:
1. Jesus is God the Son.
2. He told us that the Enemy is the Father of Lies. Lies, not sin.
3. He promised to send the Holy Spirit of Truth to His Church, built upon Peter the Rock. He promised that the Holy Spirit of Truth would lead his Church into "all" the truth. (Please see John 16).
4. Catholics believe that Jesus really meant this, and not only that, since He is God, He actually did it.
5. For the first 1,000 years, the time of the Orthodox Schism, all Christians, except for some outlying heretics, believed that the Church was founded by Our Lord on Peter.
6. To deny that the Catholic Church is Jesus' one true Church is to deny the divinity of Christ: it is to say that Jesus was not capable of doing what He clearly said he would do: Protect His Holy Bride, the Church, from the Father of Lies.
7. If the Orthodox are right, if Protestants are right, it means that Jesus was not protecting his Church during the first 1,000 years.
8. To sum up: Jesus is the Divine Bridegroom, the Church is the Bride, the Enemy is the Father of LIES. The Holy Spirit of Truth, who renders the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church alone, infallible in teaching about faith and morals, has protected the Catholic Church since day one. To deny this is to deny that Jesus has what it takes to protect His Bride.
1. Jesus is God the Son.
2. He told us that the Enemy is the Father of Lies. Lies, not sin.
3. He promised to send the Holy Spirit of Truth to His Church, built upon Peter the Rock. He promised that the Holy Spirit of Truth would lead his Church into "all" the truth. (Please see John 16).
4. Catholics believe that Jesus really meant this, and not only that, since He is God, He actually did it.
5. For the first 1,000 years, the time of the Orthodox Schism, all Christians, except for some outlying heretics, believed that the Church was founded by Our Lord on Peter.
6. To deny that the Catholic Church is Jesus' one true Church is to deny the divinity of Christ: it is to say that Jesus was not capable of doing what He clearly said he would do: Protect His Holy Bride, the Church, from the Father of Lies.
7. If the Orthodox are right, if Protestants are right, it means that Jesus was not protecting his Church during the first 1,000 years.
8. To sum up: Jesus is the Divine Bridegroom, the Church is the Bride, the Enemy is the Father of LIES. The Holy Spirit of Truth, who renders the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church alone, infallible in teaching about faith and morals, has protected the Catholic Church since day one. To deny this is to deny that Jesus has what it takes to protect His Bride.
7.11.2009 | 12:08pm
Clare Krishan says:
Necrophilia is an inappropriate fulfilment of sexual urges, right, one that it seems to me would only be possible for disordered nature of the masculine sex, since to consummate relations the feminine nature requires tumescence on the part of her partner, a circulatory function of a living corpus. No offense intended to reformers, but your love of all things ancient is a necroerotic fantasy, the Bridegroom's tumescence resides in the Catholic Church (no vulgarity intended, the metaphor is biblical). Paul's use of sarx (flesh) in adjuring man's fallible devotion to form over function (pork or beef is "flesh", pig or cow is creature) ought give all pause to reflect on "ancient." Eating Mu Shoo Pork from the Chinese take away or munching down on a juicy burger from the drive thru' does not deny the development time preceeding the conventional tradition of cooking the butcher's "gifts" but it does not adequately convey what Catholics believe Christ instituted on the eve of His own sacrifice on the Cross, a self-giving gift of the Pascal Victim not the Roman slaughterhouse or Palestinian lumberyard. The body of Christ is living, his bride too. Man cannot divorce her to go find a new "honey."
Note, no man hater me, denial of consummation's mystical aspects is possible from a feminine perspective also; here the human capacity for divine penetration is denied, the individual receptive soul is reduced to atomic participation in one humongous womb, the New Age Gaia gnosis of one world soul, the suffocating nanny of niceness.
God Bless
Note, no man hater me, denial of consummation's mystical aspects is possible from a feminine perspective also; here the human capacity for divine penetration is denied, the individual receptive soul is reduced to atomic participation in one humongous womb, the New Age Gaia gnosis of one world soul, the suffocating nanny of niceness.
God Bless
7.11.2009 | 2:03pm
Constantine says:
It seems a matter of bad taste for Mr. Giunta to tread upon the graciousness of the editors of FIRST THINGS and the careful writing of soon-to-be Dr. Ballor with his diatribe. The matter is made worse by his peculiar combination of condescension and error.
To presuppose a monolithic, universal interpretation of the Early Church Fathers on any matter flies in the face of even Roman Catholic scholarship. As but one example, Fr. Joseph Fitzmyer on whether there was agreement on the Scriptures: “Yet there was no uniform or monolithic patristic interpretation, either in the Greek Church of the East, Alexandrian or Antiochene, or in the Latin Church of the West. No one can ever tell us where such a "unanimous consent of the fathers" is to be found…” Fitzmyer and others lay waste Mr. Giunta’s continuing diatribe about the uniformity of the ECF’s on any matter – whether for or against modern Rome.
At times reflection upon Mr. Giunta’s assertions leads to genuinely entertaining results. To accept his naked assertion that the ECF’s gathered their knowledge of Scripture from a Roman Magisterium that did not exist until at least the 5th century - perhaps more accurately until the 12th – is to make men like Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, et. al., Biblical ignoramuses! And to go further with Mr. Giunta’s paradigm and assert that Augustine would have looked to the Pelagian Pope Zosimus for Scriptural instruction is laughable. His simplistic broad brush also denies more recent history wherein papal pronouncements were not distributed in 18th and 19th century European churches until after they had received approval from the local church – or the state. It seems that the primacy of Magisterial teaching is a new phenomenon that has escaped Mr. Giunta’s scholarship.
Mr. Giunta’s association of Protestants with early heretics shows a clear deterioration from ignorance to bigotry – and he should stop that. As we have shown with just one brief example, heresy has been known to infect the very highest levels of Rome. Smear is never an acceptable apologetic, Mr. Giunta. Me thinks you should go pick cherries from your own tree.
The limitations of space necessarily preclude a deeper or broader excursion into Mr. Giunta’s wrong-headedness. Suffice it to say that his protestations of uniform Roman liturgical practice or ecclesiology are equally as mis-guided. We lastly object to his mischaracterization of his own opinion as “humble”. It turns out to be just as bold as it is wrong.
At any rate, today we gather to acknowledge – if not pay honor to – the memory of John Calvin. Perhaps we should honor the birthday boy with the last word:
It is a calumny to represent us as opposed to the fathers…Were the contest to be decided by such authority…the better part of the victory would be ours…Still, in studying their writings, we have endeavored to remember that all things are ours, to serve, not lord it over us, but that we are Christ’s only, and must obey him in all things without exception. (“Prefatory Address by John Calvin to Francis I, King of France (1636)).
Thanks to Mr. Ballor and the editors of First Things for another wonderful job!
And Happy Birthday, John Calvin!
To presuppose a monolithic, universal interpretation of the Early Church Fathers on any matter flies in the face of even Roman Catholic scholarship. As but one example, Fr. Joseph Fitzmyer on whether there was agreement on the Scriptures: “Yet there was no uniform or monolithic patristic interpretation, either in the Greek Church of the East, Alexandrian or Antiochene, or in the Latin Church of the West. No one can ever tell us where such a "unanimous consent of the fathers" is to be found…” Fitzmyer and others lay waste Mr. Giunta’s continuing diatribe about the uniformity of the ECF’s on any matter – whether for or against modern Rome.
At times reflection upon Mr. Giunta’s assertions leads to genuinely entertaining results. To accept his naked assertion that the ECF’s gathered their knowledge of Scripture from a Roman Magisterium that did not exist until at least the 5th century - perhaps more accurately until the 12th – is to make men like Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, et. al., Biblical ignoramuses! And to go further with Mr. Giunta’s paradigm and assert that Augustine would have looked to the Pelagian Pope Zosimus for Scriptural instruction is laughable. His simplistic broad brush also denies more recent history wherein papal pronouncements were not distributed in 18th and 19th century European churches until after they had received approval from the local church – or the state. It seems that the primacy of Magisterial teaching is a new phenomenon that has escaped Mr. Giunta’s scholarship.
Mr. Giunta’s association of Protestants with early heretics shows a clear deterioration from ignorance to bigotry – and he should stop that. As we have shown with just one brief example, heresy has been known to infect the very highest levels of Rome. Smear is never an acceptable apologetic, Mr. Giunta. Me thinks you should go pick cherries from your own tree.
The limitations of space necessarily preclude a deeper or broader excursion into Mr. Giunta’s wrong-headedness. Suffice it to say that his protestations of uniform Roman liturgical practice or ecclesiology are equally as mis-guided. We lastly object to his mischaracterization of his own opinion as “humble”. It turns out to be just as bold as it is wrong.
At any rate, today we gather to acknowledge – if not pay honor to – the memory of John Calvin. Perhaps we should honor the birthday boy with the last word:
It is a calumny to represent us as opposed to the fathers…Were the contest to be decided by such authority…the better part of the victory would be ours…Still, in studying their writings, we have endeavored to remember that all things are ours, to serve, not lord it over us, but that we are Christ’s only, and must obey him in all things without exception. (“Prefatory Address by John Calvin to Francis I, King of France (1636)).
Thanks to Mr. Ballor and the editors of First Things for another wonderful job!
And Happy Birthday, John Calvin!
7.11.2009 | 2:20pm
Pastor Spomer says:
Dear Lucy Tucker please let me give you a perspective of someone who lovingly and respectfully disagrees.
Here's why the Catholic Church is the one, holy ,catholic and apostolic church established by Christ Himself:
1. Jesus is God the Son.
Check
2. He told us that the Enemy is the Father of Lies. Lies, not sin.
I hesitant to make much of a deal about the distinction between lies and sin, not wanting to have much of either if I can avoid it, but OK. Check
3. He promised to send the Holy Spirit of Truth to His Church, built upon Peter the Rock. He promised that the Holy Spirit of Truth would lead his Church into "all" the truth. (Please see John 16).
Check, because Peter is an Orthodox Lutheran. Everything which we know about him leads us to believe that he would be happy to sign the Augsburg Confession.
4. Catholics believe that Jesus really meant this, and not only that, since He is God, He actually did it.
Check
5. For the first 1,000 years, the time of the Orthodox Schism, all Christians, except for some outlying heretics, believed that the Church was founded by Our Lord on Peter.
They would probably say founded on Jesus Christ, but Peter will do, meaning that he espouses the One True Faith which I trust you and I share. “Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.” Ephesians 2:19-21
6. To deny that the Catholic Church is Jesus' one true Church is to deny the divinity of Christ: it is to say that Jesus was not capable of doing what He clearly said he would do: Protect His Holy Bride, the Church, from the Father of Lies.
Christ has. I believe that part of that protection was to send us men like Athanasius, and Martin Luther who called the catholic church to orthodoxy.
7. If the Orthodox are right, if Protestants are right, it means that Jesus was not protecting his Church during the first 1,000 years.
The Book of Concord is resplendent with references to the Church Fathers. Jesus has always, and still protects His Church.
8. To sum up: Jesus is the Divine Bridegroom, the Church is the Bride, the Enemy is the Father of LIES. The Holy Spirit of Truth, who renders the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church alone, infallible in teaching about faith and morals, has protected the Catholic Church since day one. To deny this is to deny that Jesus has what it takes to protect His Bride.
His Bible, and I would add, His Church. The two always go together. Sola Scripture never means the Bible with out the Church and Sacraments. So, you and I would have great Concordance if we were to start spelling Catholic with a lower case “c”.
God bless to all who hear the voice of the Lamb. May we be one as Christ prayed we would be.
Here's why the Catholic Church is the one, holy ,catholic and apostolic church established by Christ Himself:
1. Jesus is God the Son.
Check
2. He told us that the Enemy is the Father of Lies. Lies, not sin.
I hesitant to make much of a deal about the distinction between lies and sin, not wanting to have much of either if I can avoid it, but OK. Check
3. He promised to send the Holy Spirit of Truth to His Church, built upon Peter the Rock. He promised that the Holy Spirit of Truth would lead his Church into "all" the truth. (Please see John 16).
Check, because Peter is an Orthodox Lutheran. Everything which we know about him leads us to believe that he would be happy to sign the Augsburg Confession.
4. Catholics believe that Jesus really meant this, and not only that, since He is God, He actually did it.
Check
5. For the first 1,000 years, the time of the Orthodox Schism, all Christians, except for some outlying heretics, believed that the Church was founded by Our Lord on Peter.
They would probably say founded on Jesus Christ, but Peter will do, meaning that he espouses the One True Faith which I trust you and I share. “Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.” Ephesians 2:19-21
6. To deny that the Catholic Church is Jesus' one true Church is to deny the divinity of Christ: it is to say that Jesus was not capable of doing what He clearly said he would do: Protect His Holy Bride, the Church, from the Father of Lies.
Christ has. I believe that part of that protection was to send us men like Athanasius, and Martin Luther who called the catholic church to orthodoxy.
7. If the Orthodox are right, if Protestants are right, it means that Jesus was not protecting his Church during the first 1,000 years.
The Book of Concord is resplendent with references to the Church Fathers. Jesus has always, and still protects His Church.
8. To sum up: Jesus is the Divine Bridegroom, the Church is the Bride, the Enemy is the Father of LIES. The Holy Spirit of Truth, who renders the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church alone, infallible in teaching about faith and morals, has protected the Catholic Church since day one. To deny this is to deny that Jesus has what it takes to protect His Bride.
His Bible, and I would add, His Church. The two always go together. Sola Scripture never means the Bible with out the Church and Sacraments. So, you and I would have great Concordance if we were to start spelling Catholic with a lower case “c”.
God bless to all who hear the voice of the Lamb. May we be one as Christ prayed we would be.
7.11.2009 | 3:17pm
Eric Giunta says:
Mr. Welborn:
The problem with your argument is that it is self-refuting, given your premises.
For that very same Bible you tenaciously cling to is itself the historical product of post-Constantinian Catholic Christianity, collated and canonized by celibate, Mary-worshipping, transubstantiating Catholic bishops.
The problem with your argument is that it is self-refuting, given your premises.
For that very same Bible you tenaciously cling to is itself the historical product of post-Constantinian Catholic Christianity, collated and canonized by celibate, Mary-worshipping, transubstantiating Catholic bishops.
7.11.2009 | 3:26pm
Robberson says:
I'm certainly not as knowledgeable as the individuals commenting here. I do have one question however. Why would Christ allow his believers to be so misinformed about Himself and His Church for so many hundreds of years. I find it difficult to believe He let so many millions of the faithful to be mislead until the Reformation.
7.11.2009 | 7:30pm
George Welborn says:
Look what Justin Martyr ( 100-165 AD) writes about a Simon in Rome.
"There was a Samaritan, Simon, a native of the village called Gitto, who in the reign of Claudius Cæsar, and in your royal city of Rome, did mighty acts of magic, by virtue of the art of the devils operating in him. He was considered a god, and as a god was honored by you with a statue, which statue was erected on the river Tiber[Rome], between the two bridges, and bore this inscription, in the language of Rome: "Simoni Deo Sancto," "To Simon the holy God." And almost all the Samaritans, and a few even of other nations, worship him, and acknowledge him as the first god; and a woman, Helena, who went about with him at that time, and had formerly been a prostitute, they say is the first idea generated by him. " - Justin Martyr taken from www.newadvent.org
Justin also commanded this statue be destroyed in 150 AD. Historical evidence shows that Simon the Sorcerer was buried on Vatican Hill. The 3rd and 4th century writers confused or were forged to replace him with Simon Peter. No 2nd century author states Apostle Peter in Rome. So the facts speak loud and clear. Furthermore Justin Martyr nowhere mentions Peter the Apostle in Rome.
As an aside, in the 1950’s, the Catholic church dug up the bones under the Vatican of Simon the Sorcerer and claimed that they belonged to be Peter the Apostle. The Vatican is actually built on a pagan burial mound. Consider that no Jew or Christian would allow such a great man as Peter to be buried with pagans. Justin Martyr never mentions the Apostle Peter being in Rome
"There was a Samaritan, Simon, a native of the village called Gitto, who in the reign of Claudius Cæsar, and in your royal city of Rome, did mighty acts of magic, by virtue of the art of the devils operating in him. He was considered a god, and as a god was honored by you with a statue, which statue was erected on the river Tiber[Rome], between the two bridges, and bore this inscription, in the language of Rome: "Simoni Deo Sancto," "To Simon the holy God." And almost all the Samaritans, and a few even of other nations, worship him, and acknowledge him as the first god; and a woman, Helena, who went about with him at that time, and had formerly been a prostitute, they say is the first idea generated by him. " - Justin Martyr taken from www.newadvent.org
Justin also commanded this statue be destroyed in 150 AD. Historical evidence shows that Simon the Sorcerer was buried on Vatican Hill. The 3rd and 4th century writers confused or were forged to replace him with Simon Peter. No 2nd century author states Apostle Peter in Rome. So the facts speak loud and clear. Furthermore Justin Martyr nowhere mentions Peter the Apostle in Rome.
As an aside, in the 1950’s, the Catholic church dug up the bones under the Vatican of Simon the Sorcerer and claimed that they belonged to be Peter the Apostle. The Vatican is actually built on a pagan burial mound. Consider that no Jew or Christian would allow such a great man as Peter to be buried with pagans. Justin Martyr never mentions the Apostle Peter being in Rome
7.11.2009 | 7:41pm
George Welborn says:
Why Peter never in Rome( Crucifixion a different story)
1. At the end of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans he greets no fewer than 28 different individuals, but never mentions Peter once! See Romans 16 --read the whole chapter! Remember, Paul greeted these people in 55 or 56 A.D. Why didn’t he mention Peter? -- Peter simply wasn’t there!
2. Some four years after Paul wrote Romans, he was conveyed as a prisoner to Rome in order to stand trial before Caesar. When the Christian community in Rome heard of Paul’s arrival, they all went to meet him. "When THE brethren [of Rome] heard of us, they came to meet us" (Acts 28:15). Again, there is not a single mention of Peter among them. This would have been extraordinary had Peter been in Rome, for Luke always mentions by name important Apostles in his narration of Acts. But he says nothing of Peter’s meeting with Paul.
Why? Because Peter was not in Rome!
3. When Paul finally arrived at Rome, the first thing he did was to summon "the chief of the Jews together" (Acts 28:17) to whom he "expounded and testified the kingdom of God" (Verse 23). But what is amazing is that these chief Jewish elders claimed they knew very little even about the basic teachings of Christ. All they knew was that ‘‘as concerning this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken against" (Verse 22). Then Paul began to explain to them the basic teachings of Christ on the Kingdom of God. Some believed -- the majority didn’t.
Now, what does all this mean? It means that if Peter, who was himself a strongly partisan Jew, had been preaching constantly in Rome for 14 long years before this time, AND WAS STILL THERE -- how could these Jewish leaders have known so little about even the basic truths of Christianity? This again is clear proof Peter had not been in Rome prior to 59 A.D. No Mention of Peter in Paul’s Letters.
So Eric you are discredited for not doing your homework either.
Let me brutally clear. No Seminary trained scholar considers Catholics brethren. Catholics are Apostate practicing idol worship by bowing down before their wafer god. The wafer god is the 'golden calf' of the 21st century Catholic.
1. At the end of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans he greets no fewer than 28 different individuals, but never mentions Peter once! See Romans 16 --read the whole chapter! Remember, Paul greeted these people in 55 or 56 A.D. Why didn’t he mention Peter? -- Peter simply wasn’t there!
2. Some four years after Paul wrote Romans, he was conveyed as a prisoner to Rome in order to stand trial before Caesar. When the Christian community in Rome heard of Paul’s arrival, they all went to meet him. "When THE brethren [of Rome] heard of us, they came to meet us" (Acts 28:15). Again, there is not a single mention of Peter among them. This would have been extraordinary had Peter been in Rome, for Luke always mentions by name important Apostles in his narration of Acts. But he says nothing of Peter’s meeting with Paul.
Why? Because Peter was not in Rome!
3. When Paul finally arrived at Rome, the first thing he did was to summon "the chief of the Jews together" (Acts 28:17) to whom he "expounded and testified the kingdom of God" (Verse 23). But what is amazing is that these chief Jewish elders claimed they knew very little even about the basic teachings of Christ. All they knew was that ‘‘as concerning this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken against" (Verse 22). Then Paul began to explain to them the basic teachings of Christ on the Kingdom of God. Some believed -- the majority didn’t.
Now, what does all this mean? It means that if Peter, who was himself a strongly partisan Jew, had been preaching constantly in Rome for 14 long years before this time, AND WAS STILL THERE -- how could these Jewish leaders have known so little about even the basic truths of Christianity? This again is clear proof Peter had not been in Rome prior to 59 A.D. No Mention of Peter in Paul’s Letters.
So Eric you are discredited for not doing your homework either.
Let me brutally clear. No Seminary trained scholar considers Catholics brethren. Catholics are Apostate practicing idol worship by bowing down before their wafer god. The wafer god is the 'golden calf' of the 21st century Catholic.
7.11.2009 | 8:44pm
Jacob says:
Great article though! Many Catholics point to the ancientness of the Church as all the proof needed that it's the One True Church.
Interesting to consider a more sophisticated Protestant argument.
Interesting to consider a more sophisticated Protestant argument.
7.12.2009 | 12:22am
Robberson says:
I guess the posters ahead of me need to explain something. Why did God wait so long to correct his disciples? There were millions of believers who lived and died in the dark. Millions had to wait until the Reformation to get the truth? Help me understand as I suppose I just don't understand God's loving nature allowing the false teaching of the Church to go on for so long. Did God get lazy or just not care?
7.12.2009 | 7:13am
George Welborn says:
God has always protected His 'ekklesia'( means called out ones or assembly). During the first few centuries, God protected His people, by keeping the church underground. In Modern times, during communism in the 20th century, the TRUE church had been underground and protected in China and Russia. Similarly the TRUE church had been underground in Europe until the Reformation. God has always protected His people from Apostate doctrine such as wafer worship, Marian dogma, Sacramental Theology, infant baptism, and other Catholic nonsense. Even Cardinal Newman admits that much of Catholicism comes from pagan worship practices. Catholicism is the syncretism between Christianity and paganism. This is no different than the syncretism between Judaism and paganism that was practiced by Samaritans during the time of Christ.
Catholics like to claim they gave us the Bible, but this is complete fiction. First no Pope convened the Council of Carthage in 397 AD. This council was designed for the North Africans not Romans. Furthermore, the word Apocrypha( word means of inferior quality or doubtful authenticity) was coined by Jerome who gave us the Latin Vulgate. Jerome did not want the Apocrypha included in the Bible. Finally Trent removed 3 books from the Apocrypha to create a different edition from the Orthodox Bible. Catholic clergy have redefined terms and deceived the sheep into believing that Catholicism is the church founded by Peter.
Catholics like to claim they gave us the Bible, but this is complete fiction. First no Pope convened the Council of Carthage in 397 AD. This council was designed for the North Africans not Romans. Furthermore, the word Apocrypha( word means of inferior quality or doubtful authenticity) was coined by Jerome who gave us the Latin Vulgate. Jerome did not want the Apocrypha included in the Bible. Finally Trent removed 3 books from the Apocrypha to create a different edition from the Orthodox Bible. Catholic clergy have redefined terms and deceived the sheep into believing that Catholicism is the church founded by Peter.
7.12.2009 | 7:42am
George Welborn says:
Jesus did not quote from the Apocrypha, Jerome did not want the Apocrypha included and the Council of Jamnia(90 AD) also rejected the Apocrypha. Thus Protestants removed the flotsam and jetsam of spurious books to return to the Original Canon. This original Canon, free of Apocrypha, was what the Waldensians 1100 AD used. The Waldensians inherited this Canon from the believers of the Piedmont. The believers of the Piedmont rebuked Jerome for his mistranslation( see writings of Jerome). The True believers have always had the Bible in its pristine form. The Waldensian helped contribute to the Textus Receptus of Erasmus.
What Catholics fail to understand is that as a Protestant, I am not beholden to a particular denomination. The Holy Spirit is my Counselor and if my church were to go apostate, He would move me out of it and place me in a new church. Thus true believers are very fluid because they know Christ is the Head of the Church and the Holy Spirit is the Counselor. Catholics by virtue of not having a relationship with Christ are beholden to submitting to the Pope, Bishop, and Priest. Catholics believe in Sacrament are the key to spiritual growth, while Protestants know that faith is the key to spiritual growth. Therefore Protestants don't need a Ministerial Priesthood and Apostolic succession to be in 'alleged' unity with the ancient church. Protestants know that they only need to be in unity of faith and service with the ancient church.
Consequently, the gulf between Catholics and Protestants has only increased over the past 500 years with the further addition of many novel doctrines by the Catholic church.
Do Catholics know that the Catholic Church withheld the Communion wine from the laity for hundreds of years! How could this then be the church of Christ?
What Catholics fail to understand is that as a Protestant, I am not beholden to a particular denomination. The Holy Spirit is my Counselor and if my church were to go apostate, He would move me out of it and place me in a new church. Thus true believers are very fluid because they know Christ is the Head of the Church and the Holy Spirit is the Counselor. Catholics by virtue of not having a relationship with Christ are beholden to submitting to the Pope, Bishop, and Priest. Catholics believe in Sacrament are the key to spiritual growth, while Protestants know that faith is the key to spiritual growth. Therefore Protestants don't need a Ministerial Priesthood and Apostolic succession to be in 'alleged' unity with the ancient church. Protestants know that they only need to be in unity of faith and service with the ancient church.
Consequently, the gulf between Catholics and Protestants has only increased over the past 500 years with the further addition of many novel doctrines by the Catholic church.
Do Catholics know that the Catholic Church withheld the Communion wine from the laity for hundreds of years! How could this then be the church of Christ?
7.12.2009 | 8:10am
George Welborn says:
Robberson:
Unfortunately, you are only exposed to what happened with Christianity in Europe. Remember Paul was sent to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews. The bulk of the Jews lived in Asia, while the bulk of the Gentiles lived in Europe, Western Turkey and North Africa.
If one reads Church history one sees the Christianity was very active in Armenia, Turkey, Persia, and India until 1000 AD. Christianity was active in China until 1400 AD. The Protestant model of assembly means a church is only as strong as its sheep. So when the sheep moved out of a region than Christianity moved out with. Therefore the Muslims, Huns, and Chinese Emperors caused major people migrations and that is why you don't see churches where they used to be. Europe always had these underground Christians and the Waldensians were very large and active from 1100 to 1500 until they merged with other Reformation groups.
I claim the Printing Press is what fueled the Reformation. When people could read the Bible it became clear that a lot of barnacles needed to be removed. This lead to great revival and people created churches in large numbers. So God is always faithful to protect his people. I always tell people to attend a Protestant church for 3 months before making any judgment. In my search for truth, I have lived on 3 continents, been a Roman Catholic, Russian Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, Presbyterian, and finally Assemblies of God and understand fully what everyone believes. It does not matter which Protestant denomination you belong to as long as they teach from the Bible using a historical-grammatical hermeneutic. This hermeneutic is only used by conservative Protestants not the liberal ones such as most Lutherans and many Methodists.
Unfortunately, you are only exposed to what happened with Christianity in Europe. Remember Paul was sent to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews. The bulk of the Jews lived in Asia, while the bulk of the Gentiles lived in Europe, Western Turkey and North Africa.
If one reads Church history one sees the Christianity was very active in Armenia, Turkey, Persia, and India until 1000 AD. Christianity was active in China until 1400 AD. The Protestant model of assembly means a church is only as strong as its sheep. So when the sheep moved out of a region than Christianity moved out with. Therefore the Muslims, Huns, and Chinese Emperors caused major people migrations and that is why you don't see churches where they used to be. Europe always had these underground Christians and the Waldensians were very large and active from 1100 to 1500 until they merged with other Reformation groups.
I claim the Printing Press is what fueled the Reformation. When people could read the Bible it became clear that a lot of barnacles needed to be removed. This lead to great revival and people created churches in large numbers. So God is always faithful to protect his people. I always tell people to attend a Protestant church for 3 months before making any judgment. In my search for truth, I have lived on 3 continents, been a Roman Catholic, Russian Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, Presbyterian, and finally Assemblies of God and understand fully what everyone believes. It does not matter which Protestant denomination you belong to as long as they teach from the Bible using a historical-grammatical hermeneutic. This hermeneutic is only used by conservative Protestants not the liberal ones such as most Lutherans and many Methodists.
7.12.2009 | 8:43am
Eric Giunta says:
Mr. Welborn:
Your sentiments certainly are not mainstream, even among your conservative Protestant co-religionists. And neither is your scholarship. The overwhelming majority of scholars, of whatever religious persuasion, accept the fact that Peter ministered in Rome and was martyred there.
Your arguments from silence have been answered before. Do thou your homework:
http://www.catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp
Also, if you would like to be taken seriously, you should limit your queries/challenges to one at a time. Most of us here don't play the game of playing with Fundamentalist trolls who leave laundry-lists of grievances and expect us to answer them a dozen at a time.
Your sentiments certainly are not mainstream, even among your conservative Protestant co-religionists. And neither is your scholarship. The overwhelming majority of scholars, of whatever religious persuasion, accept the fact that Peter ministered in Rome and was martyred there.
Your arguments from silence have been answered before. Do thou your homework:
http://www.catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp
Also, if you would like to be taken seriously, you should limit your queries/challenges to one at a time. Most of us here don't play the game of playing with Fundamentalist trolls who leave laundry-lists of grievances and expect us to answer them a dozen at a time.
7.12.2009 | 10:09am
ND says:
I encourage anyone disturbed by Welborn's comments to read the Fathers for themselves. There are translations that explain away or simply cut out passages with Catholic doctrines (unfortunately the Ante-Nicene/Nicene/Post-Nicene Fathers series does some of this) but even in these translations the truth becomes obvious pretty quickly.
The Fathers make clear that Christians who deny that the Eucharist is the flesh of Jesus Christ are not following the truth passed down to us from the Apostles (Saint Ignatius of Antioch 107 AD). They make clear that the apostolic succession and the authoritative rulings of the Church can allow us to a priori dismiss arguments from scripture that seem to point against the Catholic Church (Saint Irenaeus of Lyons 180 AD). Saint Augustine made the same argument in a letter against the Manicheans: "For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manichæus, how can I but consent?"
The non-heretical Fathers made so many and so numerous references to Peter's co-founding of the Church at Rome; they made so many appeals to Rome when other important sees broke faith with Christ; they so frequently accepted Rome's doctrinal statements even when much of the rest of the Church was arian, or monophysite -- they did so much of this that it is impossible for a serious scholar to deny the importance of Rome in the formation of the doctrinal patrimony that most Christians today believe in. This importance, much more than a mere importance of honor, it accepted by serious Eastern Orthodox scholars as well.
Finally, regarding the ability of the Pope to make the most serious doctrinal restrictions on the rest of the Church, against much of the rest of the Church's will: it turns out that our modern belief that Christ has both a human and a divine nature, not merely one nature, was protected from being completely overthrown in the fifth century not by the consensus of scriptural exegetes, not by the Eastern Sees, nor by any of the non-Catholic standards of doctrinal infallibility, but rather by that hated and "anti-Christian" figure: the Pope of Rome. I quote from John Henry Newman:
"A formula which the Creed did not contain [Leo's Tome at the Council of Chalcedon in 451], which the Fathers did not unanimously witness, and which some eminent Saints had almost in set terms opposed, which the whole East refused as a symbol, not once, but twice, patriarch by patriarch, metropolitan by metropolitan, first by the mouth of above a hundred, then by the mouth of above six hundred of its Bishops, and refused upon the grounds of its being an addition to the Creed, was forced upon the Council . . . by the resolution of the Pope of the day, acting through his Legates and supported by the civil power."
The Fathers make clear that Christians who deny that the Eucharist is the flesh of Jesus Christ are not following the truth passed down to us from the Apostles (Saint Ignatius of Antioch 107 AD). They make clear that the apostolic succession and the authoritative rulings of the Church can allow us to a priori dismiss arguments from scripture that seem to point against the Catholic Church (Saint Irenaeus of Lyons 180 AD). Saint Augustine made the same argument in a letter against the Manicheans: "For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manichæus, how can I but consent?"
The non-heretical Fathers made so many and so numerous references to Peter's co-founding of the Church at Rome; they made so many appeals to Rome when other important sees broke faith with Christ; they so frequently accepted Rome's doctrinal statements even when much of the rest of the Church was arian, or monophysite -- they did so much of this that it is impossible for a serious scholar to deny the importance of Rome in the formation of the doctrinal patrimony that most Christians today believe in. This importance, much more than a mere importance of honor, it accepted by serious Eastern Orthodox scholars as well.
Finally, regarding the ability of the Pope to make the most serious doctrinal restrictions on the rest of the Church, against much of the rest of the Church's will: it turns out that our modern belief that Christ has both a human and a divine nature, not merely one nature, was protected from being completely overthrown in the fifth century not by the consensus of scriptural exegetes, not by the Eastern Sees, nor by any of the non-Catholic standards of doctrinal infallibility, but rather by that hated and "anti-Christian" figure: the Pope of Rome. I quote from John Henry Newman:
"A formula which the Creed did not contain [Leo's Tome at the Council of Chalcedon in 451], which the Fathers did not unanimously witness, and which some eminent Saints had almost in set terms opposed, which the whole East refused as a symbol, not once, but twice, patriarch by patriarch, metropolitan by metropolitan, first by the mouth of above a hundred, then by the mouth of above six hundred of its Bishops, and refused upon the grounds of its being an addition to the Creed, was forced upon the Council . . . by the resolution of the Pope of the day, acting through his Legates and supported by the civil power."
7.12.2009 | 11:28am
Eric Giunta says:
Constantine:
Your post just now came to my attention, and I am afraid you have misrepresented both the tone and the substance of what I was trying to get across.
I think I was rather nuanced in my (very brief) summary of what the early church Fathers held unanimously among themselves. I very explicitly noted that doctrine has developed in the Church since those centuries (and indeed, was developing even then). Even so, however, the Father WERE unanimous on certain teachings, namely,
"In their notion of what constitutes the Word of God (not 'Scripture Alone'), how Christians are to know what this Word is (the Magisterium), the Fathers are thoroughly Catholic. Their worship is liturgical, their sacramental theology is realist, and they never for a moment countenance the claim that the true Church is spread across different denominations with competing creeds, sacraments, and ecclesiologies."
I believe this assessment of mine will withstand any serious historical scrutiny.
Furthermore, I did NOT conflate Protestantism with early Christian heresies. I merely pointed out that, to the extent that we can say Protestantism existed in the so-called "patristic era", it is only because various elements of Protestantism WERE subscribed to by early heretics. And so you will find the occasional heretic who denies the Real Presence, or who denies the propriety of infant baptism, or who considers the Roman episcopacy to be the seat of the anti-Christ.
In other words, "there is nothing new under the sun." And so my original statement, "Among the early heresies you do indeed find precursors to Protestant dogma, though not the same combination of doctrines one finds today in the Protestant denominations."
And surely, Mr. Constantine, you are aware that certain Protestant fundamentalists, particularly the so-called "Landmark Baptists," have ACTIVE CLAIMED these early heretics as their own spiritual forefathers?
If you're going to accuse ME of bigotry and/or poor scholarship, at least make sure you're refuting MY positions, not those of some imaginary Catholic strawman.
Your post just now came to my attention, and I am afraid you have misrepresented both the tone and the substance of what I was trying to get across.
I think I was rather nuanced in my (very brief) summary of what the early church Fathers held unanimously among themselves. I very explicitly noted that doctrine has developed in the Church since those centuries (and indeed, was developing even then). Even so, however, the Father WERE unanimous on certain teachings, namely,
"In their notion of what constitutes the Word of God (not 'Scripture Alone'), how Christians are to know what this Word is (the Magisterium), the Fathers are thoroughly Catholic. Their worship is liturgical, their sacramental theology is realist, and they never for a moment countenance the claim that the true Church is spread across different denominations with competing creeds, sacraments, and ecclesiologies."
I believe this assessment of mine will withstand any serious historical scrutiny.
Furthermore, I did NOT conflate Protestantism with early Christian heresies. I merely pointed out that, to the extent that we can say Protestantism existed in the so-called "patristic era", it is only because various elements of Protestantism WERE subscribed to by early heretics. And so you will find the occasional heretic who denies the Real Presence, or who denies the propriety of infant baptism, or who considers the Roman episcopacy to be the seat of the anti-Christ.
In other words, "there is nothing new under the sun." And so my original statement, "Among the early heresies you do indeed find precursors to Protestant dogma, though not the same combination of doctrines one finds today in the Protestant denominations."
And surely, Mr. Constantine, you are aware that certain Protestant fundamentalists, particularly the so-called "Landmark Baptists," have ACTIVE CLAIMED these early heretics as their own spiritual forefathers?
If you're going to accuse ME of bigotry and/or poor scholarship, at least make sure you're refuting MY positions, not those of some imaginary Catholic strawman.
7.12.2009 | 2:59pm
Eric Giunta says:
Mr. Welborn:
I'm beginning to think you're actually a Catholic plant, hear to make Protestants look stupid and ignorant.
For one thing, you assert: "Justin also commanded this statue be destroyed in 150 AD." I challenge you to document this assertion. Saint Justin Martyr certainly was in no position to "command" such a thing.
You also assert that no second-century source records Peter's Roman ministry. Off the top of my head, I can name Saints Ignatius of Antioch, Dionysius of Corinth, and Ireneaus, not to mention Trtullian, Gaius and the Acts of Peter.
To this we can add the traditions of the Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Churches, which certainly cannot be accused of papal bias. These churches are also insistent that Peter ministered and died in Rome.
And then there is, of course, the modern scholarly consensus, which also affirms Peter's Roman ministry.
The recent archaeological evidence is just icing on the cake, albeit there are scholarly discrepancies in this regard.
I'm beginning to think you're actually a Catholic plant, hear to make Protestants look stupid and ignorant.
For one thing, you assert: "Justin also commanded this statue be destroyed in 150 AD." I challenge you to document this assertion. Saint Justin Martyr certainly was in no position to "command" such a thing.
You also assert that no second-century source records Peter's Roman ministry. Off the top of my head, I can name Saints Ignatius of Antioch, Dionysius of Corinth, and Ireneaus, not to mention Trtullian, Gaius and the Acts of Peter.
To this we can add the traditions of the Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Churches, which certainly cannot be accused of papal bias. These churches are also insistent that Peter ministered and died in Rome.
And then there is, of course, the modern scholarly consensus, which also affirms Peter's Roman ministry.
The recent archaeological evidence is just icing on the cake, albeit there are scholarly discrepancies in this regard.
7.12.2009 | 3:26pm
David says:
Jacob says: "Clare's comment freaks me out."
Maybe I should be freaked out, too, but I didn't understand a word she wrote!
Maybe I should be freaked out, too, but I didn't understand a word she wrote!
7.12.2009 | 7:47pm
Eric Giunta says:
Mr. Welborn:
Your appeal to non-European Christianity is laughable, as the Asian Church Fathers were all Catholic in their theology, worship, and ecclesiology. Aside from the Eastern Catholics, just take a look at the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East.
Secondly, stop making the crypto-nationalist conflation of "Catholic" with "Roman". A Church Father is no less Catholic just because he didn't write a treatise on the Papacy. Catholics freely admit that the Papacy did not operate in the 5th century, for instance, as it did in the 19th and does today. Doctrinal development, my friend. What is implicit in the seed is made manifest in the tree.
The Carthaginian synods (which did not act independently of the church universal) were made up of North African Catholic bishops. Do some study of what North African Christians believed, particularly those who convened the aforementioned synods. As well, these synods send their decrees to Rome for ratification.
Finally, your Christianity of Just-Me-n-Jesus is not only unBiblical, but it reeks of American atomistic individualism, not the Gospel of Christ. The Church of the New Testament was not a babbled assembly of believers each going their own way in independent, autonomous assemblies.
Mr. Willing:
With all due respect, your exegesis makes no sense. Paul did not criticize Christians who simply claimed they possessed the true faith--Paul himself knew the true faith, and criticized other CHRISTIANS who had in fact introduced novelties into his teaching, just as the Catholic Church charitably does today.
Once again, if you Fundamentalists wish to be taken seriously, limit your objections to one at a time, so we can have intelligent discussion and debate. These mindless hit-n-run cut-n-pastes will get us nowhere.
Your appeal to non-European Christianity is laughable, as the Asian Church Fathers were all Catholic in their theology, worship, and ecclesiology. Aside from the Eastern Catholics, just take a look at the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East.
Secondly, stop making the crypto-nationalist conflation of "Catholic" with "Roman". A Church Father is no less Catholic just because he didn't write a treatise on the Papacy. Catholics freely admit that the Papacy did not operate in the 5th century, for instance, as it did in the 19th and does today. Doctrinal development, my friend. What is implicit in the seed is made manifest in the tree.
The Carthaginian synods (which did not act independently of the church universal) were made up of North African Catholic bishops. Do some study of what North African Christians believed, particularly those who convened the aforementioned synods. As well, these synods send their decrees to Rome for ratification.
Finally, your Christianity of Just-Me-n-Jesus is not only unBiblical, but it reeks of American atomistic individualism, not the Gospel of Christ. The Church of the New Testament was not a babbled assembly of believers each going their own way in independent, autonomous assemblies.
Mr. Willing:
With all due respect, your exegesis makes no sense. Paul did not criticize Christians who simply claimed they possessed the true faith--Paul himself knew the true faith, and criticized other CHRISTIANS who had in fact introduced novelties into his teaching, just as the Catholic Church charitably does today.
Once again, if you Fundamentalists wish to be taken seriously, limit your objections to one at a time, so we can have intelligent discussion and debate. These mindless hit-n-run cut-n-pastes will get us nowhere.
7.12.2009 | 8:25pm
George Welborn says:
Further evidence for Peter not in Rome. Remember Peter was the Apostle to the Jews, Paul to the Gentiles. What was the Gentile capital? It was Rome.
1. Paul specifically told the Gentile Romans that HE had been chosen to be their Apostle, not Peter. "I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable" (Rom. 15:16). How clear! Paul had the direct charge from Christ in this matter. He even further relates in Romans 15:18 that it was Christ who had chosen him "to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed."
PAUL Established the Only TRUE Church at Rome during the apostolic era.
2. We are told by Paul himself that it was he -- not Peter –who was going to officially found the Roman Church. "I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established" (Rom. 1:11). Amazing! The Church at Rome had not been ESTABLISHED officially even by 55 or 56 A.D. However, the Catholics would have us believe that Peter had done this some ten years before -- in the reign of Claudius. What nonsense! Of course you understand that NEITHER Peter nor Paul established the Catholic Church! But these proofs are given to illustrate that it is utterly impossible for PETER to have been in any way associated with ANY Church at Rome.
3. We find Paul not only wanting to establish the Church at Rome, but he emphatically tells us that his policy was NEVER to build upon another man’s foundation. "Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, LEST I SHOULD BUILD UPON ANOTHER MAN’S FOUNDATION"(Rom. 15:20). If Peter had "founded" the Roman Church some ten years before this statement, this represents a real affront to Peter. This statement alone is proof that Peter had never been in Rome before this time to "found" any church.
Eric: You claim to be a lawyer but all you do his hurl ad hominems. Is this how one wins cases in the state of Florida?
For the Record many scholars consider ALL the Ignatian Epistles forgeries. Also Eusebius, Tertullian, and Jerome utterly rejected Transubstantiation.
1. Paul specifically told the Gentile Romans that HE had been chosen to be their Apostle, not Peter. "I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable" (Rom. 15:16). How clear! Paul had the direct charge from Christ in this matter. He even further relates in Romans 15:18 that it was Christ who had chosen him "to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed."
PAUL Established the Only TRUE Church at Rome during the apostolic era.
2. We are told by Paul himself that it was he -- not Peter –who was going to officially found the Roman Church. "I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established" (Rom. 1:11). Amazing! The Church at Rome had not been ESTABLISHED officially even by 55 or 56 A.D. However, the Catholics would have us believe that Peter had done this some ten years before -- in the reign of Claudius. What nonsense! Of course you understand that NEITHER Peter nor Paul established the Catholic Church! But these proofs are given to illustrate that it is utterly impossible for PETER to have been in any way associated with ANY Church at Rome.
3. We find Paul not only wanting to establish the Church at Rome, but he emphatically tells us that his policy was NEVER to build upon another man’s foundation. "Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, LEST I SHOULD BUILD UPON ANOTHER MAN’S FOUNDATION"(Rom. 15:20). If Peter had "founded" the Roman Church some ten years before this statement, this represents a real affront to Peter. This statement alone is proof that Peter had never been in Rome before this time to "found" any church.
Eric: You claim to be a lawyer but all you do his hurl ad hominems. Is this how one wins cases in the state of Florida?
For the Record many scholars consider ALL the Ignatian Epistles forgeries. Also Eusebius, Tertullian, and Jerome utterly rejected Transubstantiation.
7.12.2009 | 8:31pm
Eric Giunta says:
Fred:
Of course, Catholics consider themselves to be the true continuation of Biblical Judaism. Historically, this is a completely plausible claim.
Of course, Catholics consider themselves to be the true continuation of Biblical Judaism. Historically, this is a completely plausible claim.
7.12.2009 | 8:55pm
Stephen Tuzynski says:
Mr. Willig, you left out Paul's "golden chain" from Romans chapter 6:
16Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? ...
19I put this in human terms because you are weak in your natural selves. Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness.
22But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.
See it? Obedience leads to righteousness, righteousness to holiness, and the end result of holiness is eternal life. Where is faith alone in there?
16Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? ...
19I put this in human terms because you are weak in your natural selves. Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness.
22But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.
See it? Obedience leads to righteousness, righteousness to holiness, and the end result of holiness is eternal life. Where is faith alone in there?
7.12.2009 | 9:05pm
George Welborn says:
Athanasius 325 AD:
1."the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth" (Athanasius, Against the Heathen, part 1, 1, 3)
2. Athanasius states that in defending doctrine, the scriptures are all-sufficient! In the Arian theological wars, Athanasius uses scripture not tradition as a first line of attack! "Now one might write at great length concerning these things, if one desired to go rate details respecting them; for the impiety and perverseness of heresies will appear to be manifold and various, and the craft of the deceivers to be very terrible. But since holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us, therefore recommending to those who desire to know more of these matters, to read the Divine word, I now hasten to set before you that which most claims attention, and for the sake of which principally I have written these things." (Athanasius, To the Bishops of Egypt, Ch 1, 4)
You see a pattern with Athanasius, in that he states scripture as being all-sufficient to teach the truth. No appeal is made to tradition.
1."the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth" (Athanasius, Against the Heathen, part 1, 1, 3)
2. Athanasius states that in defending doctrine, the scriptures are all-sufficient! In the Arian theological wars, Athanasius uses scripture not tradition as a first line of attack! "Now one might write at great length concerning these things, if one desired to go rate details respecting them; for the impiety and perverseness of heresies will appear to be manifold and various, and the craft of the deceivers to be very terrible. But since holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us, therefore recommending to those who desire to know more of these matters, to read the Divine word, I now hasten to set before you that which most claims attention, and for the sake of which principally I have written these things." (Athanasius, To the Bishops of Egypt, Ch 1, 4)
You see a pattern with Athanasius, in that he states scripture as being all-sufficient to teach the truth. No appeal is made to tradition.
7.12.2009 | 9:11pm
George Welborn says:
Eric:
1. Just for the record the Acts of Peter is a Gnostic text.
2. So the question should be where was Peter?
Near 45 A.D., we find Peter being cast into prison at Jerusalem (Acts 12:3, 4). In 49 A.D., he was still in Jerusalem, this time attending the Jerusalem Council. About 51 A.D., he was in Antioch of Syria where he got into differences with Paul because he wouldn’t sit or eat with Gentiles. Strange that the "Roman bishop" would have nothing to do with Gentiles in 51 A.D.! Later in about 66 A.D., we find him in the city of Babylon among the Jews (I Pet. 5:13). Remember that Peter was the Apostle to the CIRCUMCISED. Why was he in Babylon? Because history shows that there were as many Jews in the Mesopotamian areas in Christ’s time as there were in Palestine. It is no wonder we find him in the East. Perhaps this is the reason why scholars say Peter’s writings are strongly Aramaic in flavor, the type of Aramaic spoken in Babylon. Why of course! Peter was used to their eastern dialect.
Furthermore in Jewish Religion the word Babylon referred to Babylon, Iraq. It never referred to Rome.
1. Just for the record the Acts of Peter is a Gnostic text.
2. So the question should be where was Peter?
Near 45 A.D., we find Peter being cast into prison at Jerusalem (Acts 12:3, 4). In 49 A.D., he was still in Jerusalem, this time attending the Jerusalem Council. About 51 A.D., he was in Antioch of Syria where he got into differences with Paul because he wouldn’t sit or eat with Gentiles. Strange that the "Roman bishop" would have nothing to do with Gentiles in 51 A.D.! Later in about 66 A.D., we find him in the city of Babylon among the Jews (I Pet. 5:13). Remember that Peter was the Apostle to the CIRCUMCISED. Why was he in Babylon? Because history shows that there were as many Jews in the Mesopotamian areas in Christ’s time as there were in Palestine. It is no wonder we find him in the East. Perhaps this is the reason why scholars say Peter’s writings are strongly Aramaic in flavor, the type of Aramaic spoken in Babylon. Why of course! Peter was used to their eastern dialect.
Furthermore in Jewish Religion the word Babylon referred to Babylon, Iraq. It never referred to Rome.
7.12.2009 | 9:17pm
George Welborn says:
The Catholic Encyclopedia states that the Roman Catholic priesthood was NOT biblical and "cannot be traced back to Christ Himself by analysis of strIct historical testimony." If that were not enough, let us quote some other official catholic sources:
1) The words "priest", "priesthood" are never applied in the New Testament to the office of the Christian ministry. All Christians are said to be priests (Catholic Dictionary, Addis & Arnold Pg. 692).
2) "The priesthood evolved" (Catholic Ency. Vol. XII).
3) "Priests were not so called in the very earliest Christian times; rather they were the presbyters or elders" (Mass of the Future, Ellard, pg. 66).
4) "The Apostolic Fathers abstained from any mention of a Christian priesthood" (Catholic Dictionary, Addis & Arnold pg. 693).
It should now quite clear that there was never a Roman Catholic priesthood established by the Lord Jesus Christ, but rather a priesthood of believers, in which every born again person is a member.
1) The words "priest", "priesthood" are never applied in the New Testament to the office of the Christian ministry. All Christians are said to be priests (Catholic Dictionary, Addis & Arnold Pg. 692).
2) "The priesthood evolved" (Catholic Ency. Vol. XII).
3) "Priests were not so called in the very earliest Christian times; rather they were the presbyters or elders" (Mass of the Future, Ellard, pg. 66).
4) "The Apostolic Fathers abstained from any mention of a Christian priesthood" (Catholic Dictionary, Addis & Arnold pg. 693).
It should now quite clear that there was never a Roman Catholic priesthood established by the Lord Jesus Christ, but rather a priesthood of believers, in which every born again person is a member.
7.12.2009 | 9:47pm
Robberson says:
It seems to me that most, if not all, of my fellow posters are much smarter and more educated than me. I won't repeat my previous questions since no-one has responded directly.
I will say that, in my opinion, were Jesus on this earth today and reading this series of comments He would sadly shake His head and say---quit wasting time looking for Me within theolological arguments, you will not find Me there. Use your time on this earth to love others and in those actions you will find Me.
As for me, every thing else is "jibber-jabber since 99% of humanity cannot understand what you folks are saying. BUT, their hearts are bleeding for the love that comes from Jesus Christ, including my own.
I will say that, in my opinion, were Jesus on this earth today and reading this series of comments He would sadly shake His head and say---quit wasting time looking for Me within theolological arguments, you will not find Me there. Use your time on this earth to love others and in those actions you will find Me.
As for me, every thing else is "jibber-jabber since 99% of humanity cannot understand what you folks are saying. BUT, their hearts are bleeding for the love that comes from Jesus Christ, including my own.
7.12.2009 | 10:04pm
patricksarsfield says:
George Welborn's claim that Paul rather than Peter had been chosen by God as the Apostle to the Gentiles does not withstand cursory analysis. First, Romans 15:16 does not assert that Paul was the exclusive apostle to the Gentiles. Nor does that passage negate the fact that Peter had been an Apostle to the Gentiles from the time recorded in Acts 10 when God appointed him to convert the first Gentile convert, the Centurion Cornelius.
The best proof, though, that Peter had a primacy as Apostle to the Gentiles OVER Paul comes in Peter's bold and unequivocal claim to that effect made in the presence of and without contradiction from Paul at the time of the Jerusalem Council recorded in Acts 15. There "Simeon" made this very Petrine assertion of primacy: ""My brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that I should be the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers."
The best proof, though, that Peter had a primacy as Apostle to the Gentiles OVER Paul comes in Peter's bold and unequivocal claim to that effect made in the presence of and without contradiction from Paul at the time of the Jerusalem Council recorded in Acts 15. There "Simeon" made this very Petrine assertion of primacy: ""My brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that I should be the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers."
7.12.2009 | 10:16pm
patricksarsfield says:
George Welborn claims: "1. At the end of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans he greets no fewer than 28 different individuals, but never mentions Peter once! "
There was a very good reason for Paul NOT to mention Peter as being present in Rome in a letter that would be read publicly: Peter had been a fugitive seeking to hide his identity from the time recorded in Acts 12 when he was busted out of jail by God's Angel. For the rest of his life, Peter, who had so dominated the Book of Acts for the first 12 chapters, had to be circumspect about who he was and who knew about his whereabouts. Indeed, there is no reference (except the cryptic reference to "Babylon" in a Petrine epistle) to Peter's present whereabouts anywhere in the New Testament after the Acts 12 breakout.
There was a very good reason for Paul NOT to mention Peter as being present in Rome in a letter that would be read publicly: Peter had been a fugitive seeking to hide his identity from the time recorded in Acts 12 when he was busted out of jail by God's Angel. For the rest of his life, Peter, who had so dominated the Book of Acts for the first 12 chapters, had to be circumspect about who he was and who knew about his whereabouts. Indeed, there is no reference (except the cryptic reference to "Babylon" in a Petrine epistle) to Peter's present whereabouts anywhere in the New Testament after the Acts 12 breakout.
7.12.2009 | 11:01pm
George Welborn says:
If Jesus had clearly given Peter supreme authority over all the apostles, then the other apostles would have known it, however, at the "Last Supper" a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest (Luke 22:24). They clearly did not interpret Jesus' words to mean that Peter was the "greatest" among them or else they would not have argued about it. Another good point we find in this passage is Jesus' response. He did not resolve their dispute by reminding them that Peter was the supreme apostle, rather, He encouraged them all to be servants. The Catholic Church never-the-less construe Peter's keys to mean that he alone was the head of the Church.
However, another problem with their argument is this: Jesus gave not only Peter the power to bind and loose, He gave this power to all His disciples. Look carefully two chapters later. Jesus said the same thing, “I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matt 18:18). Who was Jesus speaking to when He made this statement? Matthew 18:1 reveals He was speaking to all His disciples: At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” From this question Jesus gave a lengthy explanation of the role of leaders and there He repeated what He said to Peter earlier that they can bind and loose, thus this proves that all the disciples had the same power that was given to Peter.
However, another problem with their argument is this: Jesus gave not only Peter the power to bind and loose, He gave this power to all His disciples. Look carefully two chapters later. Jesus said the same thing, “I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matt 18:18). Who was Jesus speaking to when He made this statement? Matthew 18:1 reveals He was speaking to all His disciples: At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” From this question Jesus gave a lengthy explanation of the role of leaders and there He repeated what He said to Peter earlier that they can bind and loose, thus this proves that all the disciples had the same power that was given to Peter.
7.12.2009 | 11:32pm
George Welborn says:
Robberson:
You may not like doctrine, but it is foundational. The first 8 ecumenical councils were all about doctrine. Only through doctrine do we understand the Trinity, that Arians are heretics, etc.
Love without doctrine, is foolishness. Do you realize that God is also a God of Wrath and will and must judge unrighteousness. Jesus talked more about Hell in the Gospels than He did about Heaven. Catholics are so easily shaken because they have no foundation built on Biblical doctrine. Transubstantiation was practiced by pagan religions such as the cult of Mithra and this is how it entered the Catholic church. Only through Scripture can we defeat the heresy that Catholics have added to Christianity. The Bible says, 'the Fear of God is the beginning of Wisdom and Knowledge'. If you don't fear God sending you to Hell than you have neither knowledge or wisdom.
I will pray for your soul, so that the Devil release you from the bondages of Rome. Again the first mention of Vicar of Christ is by Constantine, not Peter or Paul.
You may not like doctrine, but it is foundational. The first 8 ecumenical councils were all about doctrine. Only through doctrine do we understand the Trinity, that Arians are heretics, etc.
Love without doctrine, is foolishness. Do you realize that God is also a God of Wrath and will and must judge unrighteousness. Jesus talked more about Hell in the Gospels than He did about Heaven. Catholics are so easily shaken because they have no foundation built on Biblical doctrine. Transubstantiation was practiced by pagan religions such as the cult of Mithra and this is how it entered the Catholic church. Only through Scripture can we defeat the heresy that Catholics have added to Christianity. The Bible says, 'the Fear of God is the beginning of Wisdom and Knowledge'. If you don't fear God sending you to Hell than you have neither knowledge or wisdom.
I will pray for your soul, so that the Devil release you from the bondages of Rome. Again the first mention of Vicar of Christ is by Constantine, not Peter or Paul.
7.13.2009 | 12:23am
Robberson says:
Mr. George Welborn, Your comment to me "Love without doctrine, is foolishness" is astonishing!
Love IS and it is from God Himself. For you to state that without doctrine love is "foolishness" Is quite shocking!
Sir, I love my young children and they love me! Where's the doctrine in that?
I certainly hope you might consider raising your focus above the trees---------.
Love IS and it is from God Himself. For you to state that without doctrine love is "foolishness" Is quite shocking!
Sir, I love my young children and they love me! Where's the doctrine in that?
I certainly hope you might consider raising your focus above the trees---------.
7.13.2009 | 3:10am
Naturallawyer says:
I must agree with Ronald Damon. Despite all the bickering and tossing about the word "heresy" (which has been used much too lightly and readily in this forum), I believe that (many) protestants and Catholics are true Christians seeking to obey Christ, even if some of them may be mistaken about Christ's desires for their church membership. Of these people it may be said that if Christ showed up at their door and ordered them to attend a certain church, they would do so, but when two men show up at their door at different times from different churches, both claiming to have been sent by Christ, the judgment by the Christ-follower will be difficult.
I believe this view (that true Christians, i.e. recipients of Christ's salvation by faith, may be torn and misguided between the churches) is supported, for example, by the Catechism's treatment of Baptism:
"1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.
1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.
1260 'Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.'62 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity. "
Given that, according to the Catechism, "the desire for Baptism[] brings about the fruits of Baptism", does not the Catholic Church honor those who intend to follow Christ with the true Baptism (whether or not they understand it) and the true Communion (likewise)? It seems to me that it is the intent to obey Christ in Baptism (and otherwise) that matters most.
As to the eucharist itself, C. S. Lewis noted: “Jesus said ‘Take, eat’. He didn’t say, ‘Take, understand.’" Personally, whenever I take communion in any Christian church, I take it in faith that I am taking the communion that He ordained at the Last Supper. To the extent that I don't fully comprehend the sacrament, my (mis)understanding cannot alter the objective fact of what communion is and what the eucharist is, right?
I believe this view (that true Christians, i.e. recipients of Christ's salvation by faith, may be torn and misguided between the churches) is supported, for example, by the Catechism's treatment of Baptism:
"1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.
1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.
1260 'Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.'62 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity. "
Given that, according to the Catechism, "the desire for Baptism[] brings about the fruits of Baptism", does not the Catholic Church honor those who intend to follow Christ with the true Baptism (whether or not they understand it) and the true Communion (likewise)? It seems to me that it is the intent to obey Christ in Baptism (and otherwise) that matters most.
As to the eucharist itself, C. S. Lewis noted: “Jesus said ‘Take, eat’. He didn’t say, ‘Take, understand.’" Personally, whenever I take communion in any Christian church, I take it in faith that I am taking the communion that He ordained at the Last Supper. To the extent that I don't fully comprehend the sacrament, my (mis)understanding cannot alter the objective fact of what communion is and what the eucharist is, right?
7.13.2009 | 3:47am
Eric Giunta says:
Mr. Welborn:
Once again, your claims and objections are too scattered to be addressed in a single post. Which one of them would you like me to address first? I don't say this to be condescending; I feel we might learn from each other.
Feel free to email me too, if you so wish: esg08@fsu.edu
Once again, your claims and objections are too scattered to be addressed in a single post. Which one of them would you like me to address first? I don't say this to be condescending; I feel we might learn from each other.
Feel free to email me too, if you so wish: esg08@fsu.edu
7.13.2009 | 7:24am
George Welborn says:
Robberson:
Let those who love the LORD hate evil. The one who guards the lives of his godly ones will rescue them from the power of wicked people.- Psalm 97:10.
If we truly love God we will hate evil. Hating evil is commended and commanded of God.
Catholicism with its false doctrine is pure evil. Thus I am commanded by God to hate its very foundation. Since I FEAR GOD, I don't go through life like a blind and dumb pagan hoping that some Catholic mysteries will provide means of grace. Like the Bereans in Acts I have searched the scriptures for doctrine because I love God. I have refused to be ignorant about God's Word for I know it bring life to me and others. The Bible says, the pagan love their own. So loving your children does not raise you above a pagan. Look what Jesus said,
Matt5:46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Conclusion: Unless you hate evil and are perfect you can not inherit the kingdom of God.
Let those who love the LORD hate evil. The one who guards the lives of his godly ones will rescue them from the power of wicked people.- Psalm 97:10.
If we truly love God we will hate evil. Hating evil is commended and commanded of God.
Catholicism with its false doctrine is pure evil. Thus I am commanded by God to hate its very foundation. Since I FEAR GOD, I don't go through life like a blind and dumb pagan hoping that some Catholic mysteries will provide means of grace. Like the Bereans in Acts I have searched the scriptures for doctrine because I love God. I have refused to be ignorant about God's Word for I know it bring life to me and others. The Bible says, the pagan love their own. So loving your children does not raise you above a pagan. Look what Jesus said,
Matt5:46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Conclusion: Unless you hate evil and are perfect you can not inherit the kingdom of God.
7.13.2009 | 7:29am
George Welborn says:
Eric:
The Acts of Peter is one of the earliest of the apocryphal acts of the apostles.
In the text Peter performs miracles such as resurrecting smoked fish, and making dogs talk. The text condemns Simon Magus, a senior figure associated with gnosticism, who appears to have concerned the writer of the text greatly. Some versions give accounts of stories on the theme of a woman/women who prefer paralysis to sex, sometimes, including in a version from the Berlin Codex, the woman is the daughter of Peter. -Wikipedia Acts of Peter.
This work is pure fiction!!!
The Acts of Peter is one of the earliest of the apocryphal acts of the apostles.
In the text Peter performs miracles such as resurrecting smoked fish, and making dogs talk. The text condemns Simon Magus, a senior figure associated with gnosticism, who appears to have concerned the writer of the text greatly. Some versions give accounts of stories on the theme of a woman/women who prefer paralysis to sex, sometimes, including in a version from the Berlin Codex, the woman is the daughter of Peter. -Wikipedia Acts of Peter.
This work is pure fiction!!!
7.13.2009 | 7:41am
ND says:
Robberson: I thought your points were quite useful. I don't know why the anti-Catholic posters didn't answer them.
I agree with those sad about the tone here. At the end of the day, the Catholic Church doesn't say that a fundamentalist protestant is necessarily close to Jesus or necessarily far from Him -- anymore than it says a Catholic is close or far from Him. The Catholic Church just insists on having the ability and duty to define certain pathways towards Him, and insists that we have the duty to follow these pathways to the best that we can, with God's grace. The Church sees much good among Protestants, even those who irrationally hate her.
It is maddening and sad that anti-Catholicism rears its head in discussions of historical Christianity, because then hatred of Catholics and our Church is combined with intellectual dishonesty. I am sorry to have to say it, but anyone who is disturbed by Welborn's comments should read the early fathers themselves. They will quickly see that protestant fundamentalism simply cannot be found there.
Welborn, I wish you the best, and I will pray for you. I assume that you have been mislead by others.
Eric: I see what you are saying about the Orthodox arguments. I feel they tend to advance a negative ecclesiology based on explaining away every reference to the Pope's authority in antiquity. This is deficient on two counts: the lack of a positive theory, and the implausibility of every reference to the Pope's authority having a true meaning significantly less than the plain meaning of people's actions and words. All religions have some explaining away to do, but if they have to do this for all the evidence on one of the most important doctrines then they are probably wrong on that point.
I agree with those sad about the tone here. At the end of the day, the Catholic Church doesn't say that a fundamentalist protestant is necessarily close to Jesus or necessarily far from Him -- anymore than it says a Catholic is close or far from Him. The Catholic Church just insists on having the ability and duty to define certain pathways towards Him, and insists that we have the duty to follow these pathways to the best that we can, with God's grace. The Church sees much good among Protestants, even those who irrationally hate her.
It is maddening and sad that anti-Catholicism rears its head in discussions of historical Christianity, because then hatred of Catholics and our Church is combined with intellectual dishonesty. I am sorry to have to say it, but anyone who is disturbed by Welborn's comments should read the early fathers themselves. They will quickly see that protestant fundamentalism simply cannot be found there.
Welborn, I wish you the best, and I will pray for you. I assume that you have been mislead by others.
Eric: I see what you are saying about the Orthodox arguments. I feel they tend to advance a negative ecclesiology based on explaining away every reference to the Pope's authority in antiquity. This is deficient on two counts: the lack of a positive theory, and the implausibility of every reference to the Pope's authority having a true meaning significantly less than the plain meaning of people's actions and words. All religions have some explaining away to do, but if they have to do this for all the evidence on one of the most important doctrines then they are probably wrong on that point.
7.13.2009 | 9:29am
George Welborn says:
ND:
I agree the church fathers are not Evangelical fundamentalists. Athanasius called these teachers, church fathers 'men of little intellect'. ( See Athanasius, On the Incarnation)
Most of the church fathers held a combination of orthodox and heretical beliefs, could not read Hebrew or Biblical Greek and did not properly understand Jewish culture. Thus following a church fathers in toto would be maddening.
Read Philip Schaff if you want a comprehensive overview of Church History. Everything I have said, is based on this book.
Robberson: Let me explain that God is a righteous judge. Those who know little will be judged fairly. However in 2009, everyone has the ability to read, Protestant churches exist in every city in America, and the Bible is readily available. Thus the judgment on people who willfully stay ignorant will be severe.
I did comment to your other posts, but the editor deleted them.
I agree the church fathers are not Evangelical fundamentalists. Athanasius called these teachers, church fathers 'men of little intellect'. ( See Athanasius, On the Incarnation)
Most of the church fathers held a combination of orthodox and heretical beliefs, could not read Hebrew or Biblical Greek and did not properly understand Jewish culture. Thus following a church fathers in toto would be maddening.
Read Philip Schaff if you want a comprehensive overview of Church History. Everything I have said, is based on this book.
Robberson: Let me explain that God is a righteous judge. Those who know little will be judged fairly. However in 2009, everyone has the ability to read, Protestant churches exist in every city in America, and the Bible is readily available. Thus the judgment on people who willfully stay ignorant will be severe.
I did comment to your other posts, but the editor deleted them.
7.13.2009 | 12:17pm
Naturallawyer says:
ND: I am among those non-Catholic Christians who respects Roman Catholocism and occasionally draws from its well of scholarship (for instance, I agree with the Roman Catholic Church's views on birth control). However, I disagree with the Catholic Church's claim, as you put it, "on having the ability and duty to define certain pathways towards Him." If anything, perhaps the Catholic Church has the ability or duty to explain or interpret the pathway, but I don't think it gets to "define" the pathway in the sense that its teachings change or set truth itself. Whether the Catholic Church has infallibly declared true doctrine (which would have pre-existed its teachings) is certainly a matter for debate, especially considering the pronouncements and actions of past Catholic officials.
As to those who claim that the early church fathers were not "protestant fundamentalists," Catholics also readily admit that the early church fathers did not look very Catholic by today's standards. The Catholic is quick to point out, as has already been pointed out in this forum, "Doctrinal development, my friend." Couldn't the protestant fundamentalists say the same thing? Couldn't any protestant? However we've gotten to the point we're at now, both protestants and Catholics have arrived here through a long series of historical developments in the church. Hopefully, the one true faith, what C.S. Lewis termed "mere Christianity," is recognized and assented to by members of each "side," regardless of which side is correct on various (and not unimportant) details.
I do not consider myself a "fundamentalist" and I find the term to lack any meaning other than "those religious people who I think are crazy." I don't consider myself "protestant" as though I define my faith by some "protest" against Rome. I am a Christian. I am doing the best I can to obey Christ insofar as I understand His will, and assume my Catholic Christian brothers and sisters are doing likewise.
As to those who claim that the early church fathers were not "protestant fundamentalists," Catholics also readily admit that the early church fathers did not look very Catholic by today's standards. The Catholic is quick to point out, as has already been pointed out in this forum, "Doctrinal development, my friend." Couldn't the protestant fundamentalists say the same thing? Couldn't any protestant? However we've gotten to the point we're at now, both protestants and Catholics have arrived here through a long series of historical developments in the church. Hopefully, the one true faith, what C.S. Lewis termed "mere Christianity," is recognized and assented to by members of each "side," regardless of which side is correct on various (and not unimportant) details.
I do not consider myself a "fundamentalist" and I find the term to lack any meaning other than "those religious people who I think are crazy." I don't consider myself "protestant" as though I define my faith by some "protest" against Rome. I am a Christian. I am doing the best I can to obey Christ insofar as I understand His will, and assume my Catholic Christian brothers and sisters are doing likewise.
7.13.2009 | 1:46pm
ND says:
Clare Krishan, your comment was actually extremely interesting! I would love to hear more if you have it. Is that metaphor used elsewhere that you know of?
Welborn: I am still assuming that you haven't read the fathers yourself, and that you haven't read any historical analysis of the authenticity of, for example, Saint Ignatius of Antioch's letters that written after the time of Schaff.
To you and anyone else interested: you should read both Ignatius and Clement yourself. Clement of Rome wrote letters around 90 AD to the Church in Corinth. In this letters you can clearly see what the vast majority of the Fathers thought about the office of Bishop: that they were successors of the apostles, and that the office of Bishop was referred to by Christ himself in his instructions to his apostles, and that the apostles themselves referred to it in their instructions to their own successors. You can learn from Clement the early role of the Pope and his legates even in Eastern Churches. You can learn from Ignatius about the authority of bishops, about the fact that the Eucharist was considered to be the flesh of Jesus Christ, and about the fact that the Church of Rome could be referred to with the same greek word that was used to for Bishops themselves -- by a man who said of Bishops: "you should obey the Bishop as Jesus Christ obeyed the father"
Eric was correct in what he said of the Fathers, as was Newman (Eric, I just compared you to Newman). If you read the Fathers yourself, without relying on a Protestant historian to summarize them for you, you will see that there is much much more commonality among them than you think. And this commonality centers on the main truths of the Catholic Church, which have been elucidated to ever greater degrees through the working of the Holy Spirit through time in our Magisterium.
Millinerd: What's up? Have you taught RCIA again any time recently? I hope you are well.
Welborn: I am still assuming that you haven't read the fathers yourself, and that you haven't read any historical analysis of the authenticity of, for example, Saint Ignatius of Antioch's letters that written after the time of Schaff.
To you and anyone else interested: you should read both Ignatius and Clement yourself. Clement of Rome wrote letters around 90 AD to the Church in Corinth. In this letters you can clearly see what the vast majority of the Fathers thought about the office of Bishop: that they were successors of the apostles, and that the office of Bishop was referred to by Christ himself in his instructions to his apostles, and that the apostles themselves referred to it in their instructions to their own successors. You can learn from Clement the early role of the Pope and his legates even in Eastern Churches. You can learn from Ignatius about the authority of bishops, about the fact that the Eucharist was considered to be the flesh of Jesus Christ, and about the fact that the Church of Rome could be referred to with the same greek word that was used to for Bishops themselves -- by a man who said of Bishops: "you should obey the Bishop as Jesus Christ obeyed the father"
Eric was correct in what he said of the Fathers, as was Newman (Eric, I just compared you to Newman). If you read the Fathers yourself, without relying on a Protestant historian to summarize them for you, you will see that there is much much more commonality among them than you think. And this commonality centers on the main truths of the Catholic Church, which have been elucidated to ever greater degrees through the working of the Holy Spirit through time in our Magisterium.
Millinerd: What's up? Have you taught RCIA again any time recently? I hope you are well.
7.13.2009 | 2:10pm
Robberson says:
George Welborn,
Sir,your posts are informed and quite academic.
It seems to me on this this post we are ALL striving to maintain and deepen our relationship with Christ.
We may differ in approaches but we are not evil people.
We are Christians who differ and that is OK.
I offer my best regards to you and respect for your intellect.
Sir,your posts are informed and quite academic.
It seems to me on this this post we are ALL striving to maintain and deepen our relationship with Christ.
We may differ in approaches but we are not evil people.
We are Christians who differ and that is OK.
I offer my best regards to you and respect for your intellect.
7.13.2009 | 3:54pm
Sheldon Mann says:
Fred wins, based on the philosophical eloquence of the atiguity argument; it is foundational, chronologicaly prior, and economic, Bravo!
7.13.2009 | 4:13pm
Eric Giunta says:
Mr. Welborn:
Your analysis is surely not based on the Phillip Schaff I know!
And in any event, my challenge to you still stands.
Your analysis is surely not based on the Phillip Schaff I know!
And in any event, my challenge to you still stands.
7.13.2009 | 5:03pm
ND says:
Naturallawyer, I respect your tone, and your search for common ground. But Catholics are quick to point out doctrinal development because some infallible doctrines were more clearly expressed over time than they were before -- not because the early Church doesn't look very Catholic. Reading the Fathers will show you the truth of what Eric said already:
"In their notion of what constitutes the Word of God (not "Scripture Alone"), [and in] how Christians are to know what this Word is (the Magisterium), the Fathers are thoroughly Catholic. Their worship is liturgical, their sacramental theology is realist, and they never for a moment countenance the claim that the true Church is spread across different denominations with competing creeds, sacraments, and ecclesiologies."
In fact, Naturallawyer, the early Christians called this Church Catholic, and they made arguments for joining it that a Catholic of today could make for his or her Church, but that a mere Christianity Christian could not make for his or hers. I quote Saint Augustine, speaking of the Catholic Church to a member of a competing sect:
"there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should, though from the slowness of our understanding, or the small attainment of our life, the truth may not yet fully disclose itself. But with you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me, the promise of truth is the only thing that comes into play. Now if the truth is so clearly proved as to leave no possibility of doubt, it must be set before all the things that keep me in the Catholic Church; but if there is only a promise without any fulfillment, no one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion."
It is this focus of the Fathers: the focus on unity under one ecclesiological structure that they called "Catholic" -- their readiness to dismiss the scriptural and theological arguments of those who refused to become a member of this society -- that is most relevant for discussions with both mere Christianity Christians and with members of well-defined Protestant groups. What non-Catholics need is a coherent explanation for why the early Fathers demanded that all true Christians be part of what they called the "Catholic" Church -- a membership that required sacramental participation and obedience to a hierarchy. The fact that this hierarchy still exists today is problematic for the mere Christianity claims of Catholicism's irrelevance to our life as Christians, and it is also problematic for other protestant claims in favor of the demands of other societies that are without overlapping generations of leaders going back to the apostles and their original sees. The problem requires an adequate explanation of why antiquity points to the necessity of being part of a church called Catholic with such a hierarchy, such sacramental life, and such historical connections to the apostles. Why do the Fathers find this so necessary that they simply assume it -- why do very early fathers, when pressed, claim that this tradition goes back to the time of the apostles -- if, for example, mere Christianity applied to disjointed denominations with different creeds and sacraments is an acceptable alternative to obedience to what Saint Irenaeus called "the Church with which we must of necessity agree"?
It is an intellectual problem, but more importantly it is a religious one.
"In their notion of what constitutes the Word of God (not "Scripture Alone"), [and in] how Christians are to know what this Word is (the Magisterium), the Fathers are thoroughly Catholic. Their worship is liturgical, their sacramental theology is realist, and they never for a moment countenance the claim that the true Church is spread across different denominations with competing creeds, sacraments, and ecclesiologies."
In fact, Naturallawyer, the early Christians called this Church Catholic, and they made arguments for joining it that a Catholic of today could make for his or her Church, but that a mere Christianity Christian could not make for his or hers. I quote Saint Augustine, speaking of the Catholic Church to a member of a competing sect:
"there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should, though from the slowness of our understanding, or the small attainment of our life, the truth may not yet fully disclose itself. But with you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me, the promise of truth is the only thing that comes into play. Now if the truth is so clearly proved as to leave no possibility of doubt, it must be set before all the things that keep me in the Catholic Church; but if there is only a promise without any fulfillment, no one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion."
It is this focus of the Fathers: the focus on unity under one ecclesiological structure that they called "Catholic" -- their readiness to dismiss the scriptural and theological arguments of those who refused to become a member of this society -- that is most relevant for discussions with both mere Christianity Christians and with members of well-defined Protestant groups. What non-Catholics need is a coherent explanation for why the early Fathers demanded that all true Christians be part of what they called the "Catholic" Church -- a membership that required sacramental participation and obedience to a hierarchy. The fact that this hierarchy still exists today is problematic for the mere Christianity claims of Catholicism's irrelevance to our life as Christians, and it is also problematic for other protestant claims in favor of the demands of other societies that are without overlapping generations of leaders going back to the apostles and their original sees. The problem requires an adequate explanation of why antiquity points to the necessity of being part of a church called Catholic with such a hierarchy, such sacramental life, and such historical connections to the apostles. Why do the Fathers find this so necessary that they simply assume it -- why do very early fathers, when pressed, claim that this tradition goes back to the time of the apostles -- if, for example, mere Christianity applied to disjointed denominations with different creeds and sacraments is an acceptable alternative to obedience to what Saint Irenaeus called "the Church with which we must of necessity agree"?
It is an intellectual problem, but more importantly it is a religious one.
7.13.2009 | 5:17pm
ND says:
Robberson, first of all, you've made the best post here already, with the clearest argument outlining why Welborn is wrong. Second, if you read the Fathers yourself, I think you will disagree with Welborn's opinions and with the manner in which he argued them. You said that you are less educated than the other posters here. I think you're more than educated enough to read the Fathers for yourself. You will quickly see that Welborn is trying to hold back a flood of evidence with sophistry.
For example, I believe that you will find that Saint Irenaeus taught that Peter was at Rome, Saint Augustine did, Saint Jerome did, the Fathers of the Council of Ephesus did. . .the list goes on.
I'm sorry Welborn, but you should read them too, rather than rely on Protestant histories. You will not find a jumble of disorganized semi-heretics. You will find an organized community that is the germ of an organized community today -- both share the same name.
For example, I believe that you will find that Saint Irenaeus taught that Peter was at Rome, Saint Augustine did, Saint Jerome did, the Fathers of the Council of Ephesus did. . .the list goes on.
I'm sorry Welborn, but you should read them too, rather than rely on Protestant histories. You will not find a jumble of disorganized semi-heretics. You will find an organized community that is the germ of an organized community today -- both share the same name.
7.13.2009 | 6:17pm
George Welborn says:
Eric:
I am familiar with everyone of the sources you quote. Many fathers refered to the church in Rome as founded by Peter and Paul. Let me explain why this is not as clear as you outline. The church was originally founded by Paul and the church in Antioch sent missionaries/bishop to help run the church. One of these men was Clement. Clement, a disciple of Peter, claimed his authority was from Peter. Thus Rome could claim that it was the church of Peter and Paul, without Peter ever physically being present in Rome.
I remove Peter's crucifixion from the equation, since being dragged to Rome and then being crucified does not constitute an extensive ministry in Rome .
I would like to add more, however I fear the censor will cut me short.
I am familiar with everyone of the sources you quote. Many fathers refered to the church in Rome as founded by Peter and Paul. Let me explain why this is not as clear as you outline. The church was originally founded by Paul and the church in Antioch sent missionaries/bishop to help run the church. One of these men was Clement. Clement, a disciple of Peter, claimed his authority was from Peter. Thus Rome could claim that it was the church of Peter and Paul, without Peter ever physically being present in Rome.
I remove Peter's crucifixion from the equation, since being dragged to Rome and then being crucified does not constitute an extensive ministry in Rome .
I would like to add more, however I fear the censor will cut me short.
7.13.2009 | 6:32pm
George Welborn says:
Robberson: Let me explain the difference between an Ordinance and a Sacrament.
In Ordinance Theology, neither Baptism nor the Lord's Supper function as means of grace. The Christian doesn't receive anything (and certainly not the real presence of Christ) through the partaking of the Lord's Supper or by receiving the waters of Baptism. In Ordinance Theology attention is placed upon what the believer is doing in the rite, not upon what God does. As such, Ordinance Theology is entirely dependent upon the capability of the receiver to both understand and participate in the rite involved. Essentially, the ordinances become "acts of faith" rather than "means of grace." They are not channels for receiving God's love but, rather, ways in which we express our love of, faith in, and obedience to the commandments of Christ.
I hope this clarifies the issue for you.
In Ordinance Theology, neither Baptism nor the Lord's Supper function as means of grace. The Christian doesn't receive anything (and certainly not the real presence of Christ) through the partaking of the Lord's Supper or by receiving the waters of Baptism. In Ordinance Theology attention is placed upon what the believer is doing in the rite, not upon what God does. As such, Ordinance Theology is entirely dependent upon the capability of the receiver to both understand and participate in the rite involved. Essentially, the ordinances become "acts of faith" rather than "means of grace." They are not channels for receiving God's love but, rather, ways in which we express our love of, faith in, and obedience to the commandments of Christ.
I hope this clarifies the issue for you.
7.13.2009 | 7:49pm
Naturallawyer says:
ND:
By "mere Christianity" I mean only that set of beliefs that we Christians have in common. I do not mean the sole source or sum total of correct Christian beliefs, nor do I think anyone should strive to reduce themselves to "mere Christianity." I don't know if that makes me a "mere Christianity Christian" in your eyes, but I would hope you don't see me as a primitivist.
I believe in the development of doctrine, and am perfectly happy to stand on the shoulders of spiritual and intellectual giants throughout the centuries. I have no confidence that I could sit in the corner with a Bible all by myself and "figure out" all truths of Christianity. Nor could anyone else, as no Christian, Catholic or otherwise, understands today how doctrine will "develop" over the next hundred years; thus, we do not yet have a full doctrinal account. I am not criticizing the Catholic's invoking of the development of doctrine so much as I am pointing out that others might use the same premise in favor of their particular doctrinal positions.
You and I do have a different understanding of what it means to be a catholic (as opposed to Roman Catholic) Christian. My understanding of the universal Christian church is a spiritual one (though I do believe all of us share one physical communion and baptism). I believe there is a true spiritual catholic church notwithstanding the institution that has come to be the Roman Catholic Church. On the teachings of the early church fathers, I must admit that I have obviously not read as much as you or probably all of the people reading this, but you asked me to explain how it could be that the fathers placed so much emphasis on continuity from the original apostles.
It strikes me that claiming continuity to the first apostles makes sense in a world where oral tradition counts for so much. The extremely early church did not have the full canon at its disposal. There also were numerous "gospels" being circulated by all sorts of people. Anyone claiming to be a spiritual teacher had to provide some sort of backup to establish their credibility. It's similar to what you did when you quoted Augustine. Just because you find it necessary to quote Augustine to establish credibility to your argument ("hey, it's not just me saying this") does not mean that you claim an exclusive authority handed down to you from Augustine, right? This is not to say that no early church fathers claimed such an authority (the history of the church is rife with men, even catholics, over-stating their authority, is it not?). But it explains why the early church fathers may have felt compelled to do so. There are, of course, also the temptations of power and greed that may explain a case or two, but I am not thinking of anyone specifically.
I have a question for you, though. I know very little of the organization of the Catholic church, but I observe an extreme diversity among Catholics, and I've heard Catholics discuss how the different sub-groups (orders) differ from each other in teachings and emphasis. Some are Jesuits, some are not. There are disputes between various sub-groups. What is the difference between that state of affairs and having different denominations? You've got different buildings, different authoritative ideas and leaders, and different emphases for each, right? You might protest, "yes, but they have the core things in common!" Well, exactly...
By "mere Christianity" I mean only that set of beliefs that we Christians have in common. I do not mean the sole source or sum total of correct Christian beliefs, nor do I think anyone should strive to reduce themselves to "mere Christianity." I don't know if that makes me a "mere Christianity Christian" in your eyes, but I would hope you don't see me as a primitivist.
I believe in the development of doctrine, and am perfectly happy to stand on the shoulders of spiritual and intellectual giants throughout the centuries. I have no confidence that I could sit in the corner with a Bible all by myself and "figure out" all truths of Christianity. Nor could anyone else, as no Christian, Catholic or otherwise, understands today how doctrine will "develop" over the next hundred years; thus, we do not yet have a full doctrinal account. I am not criticizing the Catholic's invoking of the development of doctrine so much as I am pointing out that others might use the same premise in favor of their particular doctrinal positions.
You and I do have a different understanding of what it means to be a catholic (as opposed to Roman Catholic) Christian. My understanding of the universal Christian church is a spiritual one (though I do believe all of us share one physical communion and baptism). I believe there is a true spiritual catholic church notwithstanding the institution that has come to be the Roman Catholic Church. On the teachings of the early church fathers, I must admit that I have obviously not read as much as you or probably all of the people reading this, but you asked me to explain how it could be that the fathers placed so much emphasis on continuity from the original apostles.
It strikes me that claiming continuity to the first apostles makes sense in a world where oral tradition counts for so much. The extremely early church did not have the full canon at its disposal. There also were numerous "gospels" being circulated by all sorts of people. Anyone claiming to be a spiritual teacher had to provide some sort of backup to establish their credibility. It's similar to what you did when you quoted Augustine. Just because you find it necessary to quote Augustine to establish credibility to your argument ("hey, it's not just me saying this") does not mean that you claim an exclusive authority handed down to you from Augustine, right? This is not to say that no early church fathers claimed such an authority (the history of the church is rife with men, even catholics, over-stating their authority, is it not?). But it explains why the early church fathers may have felt compelled to do so. There are, of course, also the temptations of power and greed that may explain a case or two, but I am not thinking of anyone specifically.
I have a question for you, though. I know very little of the organization of the Catholic church, but I observe an extreme diversity among Catholics, and I've heard Catholics discuss how the different sub-groups (orders) differ from each other in teachings and emphasis. Some are Jesuits, some are not. There are disputes between various sub-groups. What is the difference between that state of affairs and having different denominations? You've got different buildings, different authoritative ideas and leaders, and different emphases for each, right? You might protest, "yes, but they have the core things in common!" Well, exactly...
7.13.2009 | 8:52pm
Francis Beckwith says:
George writes:
"The Catholic Encyclopedia states that the Roman Catholic priesthood was NOT biblical and "cannot be traced back to Christ Himself by analysis of strIct historical testimony.""
George, you prove too much. For everything you say about the priesthood is also true of the Chalcedonian Christology, the Nicean formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity as well as what constitutes the canon of Scripture.
However, if you respond by saying that these ideas are implicitly found in Scripture, that they developed over time as the Holy Spirit worked through the Church's leadership, then the same can be said about the Catholic priesthood. This, by the way, is what the Catholic Encyclopedia does in fact say if one reads the text itself rather than your uncharitable account of it.
So, in order to avoid my counterexamples, you have to think like a Catholic. But if you choose not to think like a Catholic, then your argument against the priesthood undermines these other ideas. Thus, the best way to remain an orthodox Protestant is to think like a Catholic.
Welcome home, brother!
"The Catholic Encyclopedia states that the Roman Catholic priesthood was NOT biblical and "cannot be traced back to Christ Himself by analysis of strIct historical testimony.""
George, you prove too much. For everything you say about the priesthood is also true of the Chalcedonian Christology, the Nicean formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity as well as what constitutes the canon of Scripture.
However, if you respond by saying that these ideas are implicitly found in Scripture, that they developed over time as the Holy Spirit worked through the Church's leadership, then the same can be said about the Catholic priesthood. This, by the way, is what the Catholic Encyclopedia does in fact say if one reads the text itself rather than your uncharitable account of it.
So, in order to avoid my counterexamples, you have to think like a Catholic. But if you choose not to think like a Catholic, then your argument against the priesthood undermines these other ideas. Thus, the best way to remain an orthodox Protestant is to think like a Catholic.
Welcome home, brother!
7.13.2009 | 9:46pm
George Welborn says:
Naturallawyer:
It is difficult for Americans in this age of false humility and anti-intellectualism to fathom that a person can actually understand the Bible. I consider myself very competent in understanding the Bible, Old and New Testament History, and basic Greek, and can definitely say I would avoid anyone who stated they were not capable of understanding the Bible by themselves.
The key to Bible interpretation is to understand the difference among the historical-grammatical and historical-critical and 4 senses of scripture approaches. If one does not understand this, one is forced to play in the sandbox of inane arguments and speculative Theology that doesn't lead anywhere.
Many Catholics like to quote CS Lewis, however Mere Christianity is woefully inadequate for it does not answer the questions of Church Fathers, Magisterium, Church History, Papacy, Legitimate Doctrinal Development, Justification, and other topics that cause great friction among Protestants and Catholics. Mere Christianity is better titled "Incomplete Christianity".
Consequently, I can say with utmost confidence that Peter, Paul, Jesus never intended for the creation of sacerdotal or scholastic theology. Sacerdotalism is the result of infusing paganism with Christian Ordinances. Scholastic Theology is the melding of Aristotelian Metaphysics with Christianity. Both of these doctrinal developments have been destructive to the furthering of the Gospel message and Christian growth. Study hermeneutics and the scales will begin to fall from your eyes and you will see the lacking intellect of the Church Fathers.
It is difficult for Americans in this age of false humility and anti-intellectualism to fathom that a person can actually understand the Bible. I consider myself very competent in understanding the Bible, Old and New Testament History, and basic Greek, and can definitely say I would avoid anyone who stated they were not capable of understanding the Bible by themselves.
The key to Bible interpretation is to understand the difference among the historical-grammatical and historical-critical and 4 senses of scripture approaches. If one does not understand this, one is forced to play in the sandbox of inane arguments and speculative Theology that doesn't lead anywhere.
Many Catholics like to quote CS Lewis, however Mere Christianity is woefully inadequate for it does not answer the questions of Church Fathers, Magisterium, Church History, Papacy, Legitimate Doctrinal Development, Justification, and other topics that cause great friction among Protestants and Catholics. Mere Christianity is better titled "Incomplete Christianity".
Consequently, I can say with utmost confidence that Peter, Paul, Jesus never intended for the creation of sacerdotal or scholastic theology. Sacerdotalism is the result of infusing paganism with Christian Ordinances. Scholastic Theology is the melding of Aristotelian Metaphysics with Christianity. Both of these doctrinal developments have been destructive to the furthering of the Gospel message and Christian growth. Study hermeneutics and the scales will begin to fall from your eyes and you will see the lacking intellect of the Church Fathers.
7.13.2009 | 10:10pm
ND says:
Naturallawyer, in answer to your last question:
well, one difference between the two cases is that, as in the early Church: we, the various sub-groups of the Catholic Church today, all receive communion with each other (not true of the broader group of various actual denominations and christian churches today); we all have the same visible hierarchy; and we all have the same creed. We also all have the same scriptures. These were signs of the unity of the Early Church (though the unity of the same scriptures developed a little later than the others). They are the signs of unity in the Catholic Church today. They are not signs of unity between the Catholic Church and other ecclesial bodies.
I'm glad you mentioned your explanation of why the early fathers cited their connections with antiquity. What is different about their explanations and yours is that they were concerned with an actual succession of bishops from the apostles themselves in various important sees. It was important that the men were ordained, and that they could trace their series of ordinations back to the original apostles. It was important that the men were ordained to a particular office of leadership (the Bishop). And it was important for everyone to obey these bishops in matters of discipline and doctrine. It wasn't a mere reference to someone who agreed with them and who had a position of temporal closeness to Christ. It was a reference to their ordination, their office of Bishop, and their succession in that office from man to man back to an Apostle.
well, one difference between the two cases is that, as in the early Church: we, the various sub-groups of the Catholic Church today, all receive communion with each other (not true of the broader group of various actual denominations and christian churches today); we all have the same visible hierarchy; and we all have the same creed. We also all have the same scriptures. These were signs of the unity of the Early Church (though the unity of the same scriptures developed a little later than the others). They are the signs of unity in the Catholic Church today. They are not signs of unity between the Catholic Church and other ecclesial bodies.
I'm glad you mentioned your explanation of why the early fathers cited their connections with antiquity. What is different about their explanations and yours is that they were concerned with an actual succession of bishops from the apostles themselves in various important sees. It was important that the men were ordained, and that they could trace their series of ordinations back to the original apostles. It was important that the men were ordained to a particular office of leadership (the Bishop). And it was important for everyone to obey these bishops in matters of discipline and doctrine. It wasn't a mere reference to someone who agreed with them and who had a position of temporal closeness to Christ. It was a reference to their ordination, their office of Bishop, and their succession in that office from man to man back to an Apostle.
7.14.2009 | 12:07am
Naturallawyer says:
ND:
Thank you for the edifying Catholic view (for clarity, that was not sarcastic; I do mean that). However, your statements about the divisions within Catholicism, while reflecting a Catholic viewpoint, don't really rebut my view. I *do* believe that "all [truly Christian denominations] receive communion with each other" (and I therefore have no problem communing with Christians of other denominations), and while they do not "have the same visible hierarchy", they have the same ultimate authority (Christ). (Additionally: are there not hierarchies within the various orders? If so, then it is not true that the sub-groups have the "same visible hierarchy.") Although we may not "have the same creed," if we are truly Christians, then there is some set of beliefs that we must have in common. Any expression of these core beliefs will gain the assent of true believers, and I will not shrink from giving my "amen" to statements with which I agree.
You also said regarding the early church fathers, "It wasn't a mere reference to someone who agreed with them and who had a position of temporal closeness to Christ. It was a reference to their ordination, their office of Bishop, and their succession in that office from man to man back to an Apostle." I agree with the practice of ordination. If someone approaches me on the street and says, "I'm a preacher", my first internal question is "from where? Who authorized this man?" It is important to me, for obvious reasons, that someone be "approved" by other leaders to be a leader in the church. Having said that, it still makes sense in the time period that we're discussing that someone would say "I was ordained by X, and he is/they are a valid authority because he was/they were ordained by X" to back up his claims. Whether that is truly necessary is a wholly different question than why they did it. There is an explanation that does not require an apostolic succession. A claim to apostolic succession would obviously bolster a particular person's claim to authority to teach others. It's like a "super citation", or an early form of a "masters of divinity." It is plausible that this "stamp of approval" was made into a requirement that is not necessary in fact. You asked for my explanation of why the early church fathers would focus so much on tracing their line of authority; that's one explanation. I'm not saying I have absolute certainty in that explanation, but it's what I believe.
George:
Your statement "It is difficult for Americans in this age of false humility and anti-intellectualism to fathom that a person can actually understand the Bible." is apparently a response to my statement "I have no confidence that I could sit in the corner with a Bible all by myself and 'figure out' all truths of Christianity." If your statement is a response to mine as I just laid out, you have obviously far over-stated the case. I am not a post-modernist. I can "actually understand the Bible." All I said was that I could not, on my own, figure out ALL truths of Christianity. If I had never been a Christian and the Bible fell out of the sky and hit me on the head (as an adult), and I knew no one else but pagans, the book in my hands would be quite perplexing. I certainly could "actually understand" many truths from the scripture, including the simple truths that I am a sinner and need Jesus to save me from that sin. Would I understand all of the teachings? Of course not. And neither would you. I have a lot of confidence in my intellectual abilities (and yours), but certainly not that much! Scripture itself references many mysteries of the faith. "Now we see in the mirror dimly..."
Thank you for the edifying Catholic view (for clarity, that was not sarcastic; I do mean that). However, your statements about the divisions within Catholicism, while reflecting a Catholic viewpoint, don't really rebut my view. I *do* believe that "all [truly Christian denominations] receive communion with each other" (and I therefore have no problem communing with Christians of other denominations), and while they do not "have the same visible hierarchy", they have the same ultimate authority (Christ). (Additionally: are there not hierarchies within the various orders? If so, then it is not true that the sub-groups have the "same visible hierarchy.") Although we may not "have the same creed," if we are truly Christians, then there is some set of beliefs that we must have in common. Any expression of these core beliefs will gain the assent of true believers, and I will not shrink from giving my "amen" to statements with which I agree.
You also said regarding the early church fathers, "It wasn't a mere reference to someone who agreed with them and who had a position of temporal closeness to Christ. It was a reference to their ordination, their office of Bishop, and their succession in that office from man to man back to an Apostle." I agree with the practice of ordination. If someone approaches me on the street and says, "I'm a preacher", my first internal question is "from where? Who authorized this man?" It is important to me, for obvious reasons, that someone be "approved" by other leaders to be a leader in the church. Having said that, it still makes sense in the time period that we're discussing that someone would say "I was ordained by X, and he is/they are a valid authority because he was/they were ordained by X" to back up his claims. Whether that is truly necessary is a wholly different question than why they did it. There is an explanation that does not require an apostolic succession. A claim to apostolic succession would obviously bolster a particular person's claim to authority to teach others. It's like a "super citation", or an early form of a "masters of divinity." It is plausible that this "stamp of approval" was made into a requirement that is not necessary in fact. You asked for my explanation of why the early church fathers would focus so much on tracing their line of authority; that's one explanation. I'm not saying I have absolute certainty in that explanation, but it's what I believe.
George:
Your statement "It is difficult for Americans in this age of false humility and anti-intellectualism to fathom that a person can actually understand the Bible." is apparently a response to my statement "I have no confidence that I could sit in the corner with a Bible all by myself and 'figure out' all truths of Christianity." If your statement is a response to mine as I just laid out, you have obviously far over-stated the case. I am not a post-modernist. I can "actually understand the Bible." All I said was that I could not, on my own, figure out ALL truths of Christianity. If I had never been a Christian and the Bible fell out of the sky and hit me on the head (as an adult), and I knew no one else but pagans, the book in my hands would be quite perplexing. I certainly could "actually understand" many truths from the scripture, including the simple truths that I am a sinner and need Jesus to save me from that sin. Would I understand all of the teachings? Of course not. And neither would you. I have a lot of confidence in my intellectual abilities (and yours), but certainly not that much! Scripture itself references many mysteries of the faith. "Now we see in the mirror dimly..."
7.14.2009 | 3:01am
Robberson says:
Natural lawyer,
Referring to your post of 12:07 and posts of many others on this subject, I have a comment.
I respect and admire the scholarly dissertations however just because one could fully comprehend the entire Bible means nothing in itself.
To become a Christian one must have faith. And faith cannot be obtained by our own efforts, it is a Grace (an undeserved gift from God) and unless/until one receives and opens His gift to each of us, all the "understanding" of scripture is akin to dust.
God's gift to me of faith has led me to seek His Word that in turn has "strengthened" my faith-not the other way around.
However, I'm confident many who now/will rest within God's presence have never even seen a Bible.
Yes, at times I "feel" abandoned by God and His word is of great comfort to me, though not always. During those times I am reminded of Mother Teresa's reflection "when I feel abandoned by God I choose to abandon myself to God".
Referring to your post of 12:07 and posts of many others on this subject, I have a comment.
I respect and admire the scholarly dissertations however just because one could fully comprehend the entire Bible means nothing in itself.
To become a Christian one must have faith. And faith cannot be obtained by our own efforts, it is a Grace (an undeserved gift from God) and unless/until one receives and opens His gift to each of us, all the "understanding" of scripture is akin to dust.
God's gift to me of faith has led me to seek His Word that in turn has "strengthened" my faith-not the other way around.
However, I'm confident many who now/will rest within God's presence have never even seen a Bible.
Yes, at times I "feel" abandoned by God and His word is of great comfort to me, though not always. During those times I am reminded of Mother Teresa's reflection "when I feel abandoned by God I choose to abandon myself to God".
7.14.2009 | 8:21am
ND says:
Naturallawyer:
I am going to quote a smidgen of the evidence, because it is nothing like that of _some_ men over-stating their authority by claiming a direct line of lineage in their ordination back to the apostles, to the consternation of the rest of the Christians. That claim _was_ the claim to authority in the early Church -- and those who denied it were not considered true Christians by the men who formed the Bible that you and I use. I quote from Saint Clement, Fourth Pope, ordained by Peter himself, in a letter he writes to the Corinthians around 90 AD, while the Apostle John was likely still alive!
"The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterward believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, "I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.""
He says later in the same letter:
"Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour."
Clement's letter was so well-received by the Corinthians that it was read as scripture in their assemblies.
This is not an exceptional piece of evidence in its reference to the apostolic succession. It is part and parcel with the full testimony of ancient Christianity.
That is why it is not sufficient to argue that of course some men would claim more authority than they had. The men who claimed more authority than was ultimately necessary, according to your definition of ultimately necessary, were the very men who formed the canon of scripture, and passed down to you and I the Christology that is at the basis of modern Christian belief. Those who rejected their authority were not considered true Christians, and did not represent an alternative ecclesiological viewpoint that you would recognize as protestant.
As for the Catholic hierarchy, the fact that a member of the Holy Cross Order has to answer to a Holy Cross superior in addition to his local Bishop and the Pope, while I only have to answer to my local Bishop and the Pope, does not imply we are in separate hierarchies. It implies that our hierarchical structure is not a simple tree. The various protestant hierarchies are not united in a complicated visible structure with visible links at each step and a visible head. They are united by an invisible head. This is the opposite of early Chrisitan ecclesiology.
Welborn, one more thing: you said that "Catholicism with its false doctrine is pure evil. Thus I am commanded by God to hate its very foundation." You are utterly and completely wrong. If you understood God's commandments you would ask forgiveness from all of us for your hateful and dishonest words. As it is, I forgive you anyway.
To all: I have taken up way more than my fare share on this board already. I make two recommendations. Check out one of Francis Beckwith's favorite blogs: Called to Communion (www.calledtocommunion.com). And also, please email me if you would like to discuss more. I would like to myself: KBDh02@yahoo.com.
I am going to quote a smidgen of the evidence, because it is nothing like that of _some_ men over-stating their authority by claiming a direct line of lineage in their ordination back to the apostles, to the consternation of the rest of the Christians. That claim _was_ the claim to authority in the early Church -- and those who denied it were not considered true Christians by the men who formed the Bible that you and I use. I quote from Saint Clement, Fourth Pope, ordained by Peter himself, in a letter he writes to the Corinthians around 90 AD, while the Apostle John was likely still alive!
"The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterward believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, "I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.""
He says later in the same letter:
"Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour."
Clement's letter was so well-received by the Corinthians that it was read as scripture in their assemblies.
This is not an exceptional piece of evidence in its reference to the apostolic succession. It is part and parcel with the full testimony of ancient Christianity.
That is why it is not sufficient to argue that of course some men would claim more authority than they had. The men who claimed more authority than was ultimately necessary, according to your definition of ultimately necessary, were the very men who formed the canon of scripture, and passed down to you and I the Christology that is at the basis of modern Christian belief. Those who rejected their authority were not considered true Christians, and did not represent an alternative ecclesiological viewpoint that you would recognize as protestant.
As for the Catholic hierarchy, the fact that a member of the Holy Cross Order has to answer to a Holy Cross superior in addition to his local Bishop and the Pope, while I only have to answer to my local Bishop and the Pope, does not imply we are in separate hierarchies. It implies that our hierarchical structure is not a simple tree. The various protestant hierarchies are not united in a complicated visible structure with visible links at each step and a visible head. They are united by an invisible head. This is the opposite of early Chrisitan ecclesiology.
Welborn, one more thing: you said that "Catholicism with its false doctrine is pure evil. Thus I am commanded by God to hate its very foundation." You are utterly and completely wrong. If you understood God's commandments you would ask forgiveness from all of us for your hateful and dishonest words. As it is, I forgive you anyway.
To all: I have taken up way more than my fare share on this board already. I make two recommendations. Check out one of Francis Beckwith's favorite blogs: Called to Communion (www.calledtocommunion.com). And also, please email me if you would like to discuss more. I would like to myself: KBDh02@yahoo.com.
7.14.2009 | 11:55am
George Welborn says:
Clearly the TRUE church has had a 2000 year history just like the Catholics and Orthodox. History does not make a doctrine true or false.
Before the Messiah, Israel and Judah had a 1000 year history of Idol worship and Yahweh worship. The bulk of the people were in Idol worship not Yahweh worship. Similarly the Catholic church has a mixture of Idol worship and Jesus worship. I claim that the bulk of Catholics are involved in Idol worship and only a few are involved in Jesus worship. Evangelicals have removed the Idols and as such are the TRUE church of Christ. The Catholic idols being Transubstantiation, Eucharistic Adoration, Pope being Vicar of Christ, and Mariolatry.
As I have stated before the bulk of the TRUE church was underground before the Reformation. Remember the TRUE church was underground until Constantine, and the bulk still remains underground in China, and the Middle East.
Those who practice Idolatry are the ones who need to repent, lest God send them into outer-darkness.
Before the Messiah, Israel and Judah had a 1000 year history of Idol worship and Yahweh worship. The bulk of the people were in Idol worship not Yahweh worship. Similarly the Catholic church has a mixture of Idol worship and Jesus worship. I claim that the bulk of Catholics are involved in Idol worship and only a few are involved in Jesus worship. Evangelicals have removed the Idols and as such are the TRUE church of Christ. The Catholic idols being Transubstantiation, Eucharistic Adoration, Pope being Vicar of Christ, and Mariolatry.
As I have stated before the bulk of the TRUE church was underground before the Reformation. Remember the TRUE church was underground until Constantine, and the bulk still remains underground in China, and the Middle East.
Those who practice Idolatry are the ones who need to repent, lest God send them into outer-darkness.
7.14.2009 | 1:22pm
Robberson says:
Mr. Welborn, could we at least agree that hatred and vindictiveness are quite damaging to ones emotional health?
7.14.2009 | 5:50pm
George Welborn says:
Gentlemen:
I am not vindictive or have hatred towards Catholics. What is not communicated in a blog is my excitement that I have been delivered from Catholic superstition and now have found TRUTH in the Assemblies of God. Like the Prophets of the Old Testament, I am telling everyone to repent for practicing Idolatry. This is no different than John the Baptist crying out from the wilderness to the unrighteous:
Luke 3:7-9He said therefore to the multitudes that came out to be baptized by him, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8Bear fruits that befit repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father'; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. 9Even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire."
I don't think John the Baptist had hatred, but righteous anger towards their stubborn hearts.
2. Let me correct a common misunderstanding. Catholics state, 'we are sinners saved by grace'. Evangelicals would say we are Saints who will be saved by faith through grace'. This one example illustrates the huge Theological difference between our two communions.
3. Michael Conway: It is amazing how often Catholics will try to discredit me with ad hominem attacks. Please refute my posts, viz. Peter not being Rome, Catholics removing 3 books from the Bible, Athanasius using scripture not tradition to refute heresey, etc. Also please explain the difference between the 3 hermeneutical principles listed.
Once you can do this you are more than free to call me an ignoramus. Until this time please keep your ad hominems to yourself.
I am not vindictive or have hatred towards Catholics. What is not communicated in a blog is my excitement that I have been delivered from Catholic superstition and now have found TRUTH in the Assemblies of God. Like the Prophets of the Old Testament, I am telling everyone to repent for practicing Idolatry. This is no different than John the Baptist crying out from the wilderness to the unrighteous:
Luke 3:7-9He said therefore to the multitudes that came out to be baptized by him, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8Bear fruits that befit repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father'; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. 9Even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire."
I don't think John the Baptist had hatred, but righteous anger towards their stubborn hearts.
2. Let me correct a common misunderstanding. Catholics state, 'we are sinners saved by grace'. Evangelicals would say we are Saints who will be saved by faith through grace'. This one example illustrates the huge Theological difference between our two communions.
3. Michael Conway: It is amazing how often Catholics will try to discredit me with ad hominem attacks. Please refute my posts, viz. Peter not being Rome, Catholics removing 3 books from the Bible, Athanasius using scripture not tradition to refute heresey, etc. Also please explain the difference between the 3 hermeneutical principles listed.
Once you can do this you are more than free to call me an ignoramus. Until this time please keep your ad hominems to yourself.
7.14.2009 | 8:22pm
Constantine says:
Mr. Giunta,
Greetings to you. To the extent that I either misunderstood or misrepresented your positions I apologize. Although, I don’t believe I’ve done either.
You remarked that, “The only way one can possibly claim Fathers such as Augustine and Chryostom for themselves (Protestants) is by cherry-picking and decontextualizing their words, or by failing to take into account the (equally ancient) doctrine of doctrinal-development. “ My point was that the context say, of Augustine’s sermon 272 on the Lord’s Supper has nothing at all to do with the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation. (i.e. “What is seen is the corporeal species, but what is understood is the spiritual fruit.”) So it is not “decontextualizing” in the least to assert the opposite – that is that Rome either de- or re-contetxtualizes Augustine in this regard. Augustine, by your definition, is one of those “heretic[s] who denies the Real Presence” if by that you mean transubstantiation.
You further stated, “In their notion of what constitutes the Word of God (not "Scripture Alone"), how Christians are to know what this Word is (the Magisterium), the Fathers are thoroughly Catholic.”
The noted church historian, J.N.D. Kelly, has a very different take than yours: “These developments might suggest that the tradition of the fathers was coming to be treated as authoritative in its own right. Such a reading of the evidence would, however, be mistaken. Great as was the respect paid to the fathers, there was no question of their being regarded as having access to truths other than those already contained, explicitly or implicitly, in Scripture…Theodoret for his part crystallized his position in the statement, ‘I yield obedience to Holy Scripture alone’. (Early Christian Doctrines, 5th ed., p. 49)
That sounds an awful lot like Luther, don’t you agree?
And as far as the Magisterium goes, even Catholic scholars admit that there was no such thing as a monarchical episcopate in Rome until the middle of the 2nd century. Hans Küng teaches that the first “real pope” was Leo I at the end of the 5th century and Professor Colin Morris is skeptical that the mechanism for a teaching authority in Rome existed before the 12th century. The point of all this is, with regard to the ECF’s, it was certainly not the bishop of Rome or the “catholic magiesterium” that taught anyone what the Word of God is.
I’m sad to say that you did, in fact, “conflate Protestantism with early Christian heresies. You said, “Among the early heresies you do indeed find precursors to Protestant dogma, though not the same combination of doctrines one finds today in the Protestant denominations.”
I’m not sure what the point of that is since it could just as easily be said of Rome – and with more than precursors. After all, Pope Zosimus published an encyclical supporting the heretic Pelagius, only to be overturned by the Emperor Honorius. It is one of the great ironies of patristic history, don’t you think, that a secular emperor saved the head of the “Catholic” church from eternal heresy? God works in mysterious ways.
Lastly, your argument for longevity is very ironic. Ironic in the sense that Rome claims to be the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic” church but your argument is exactly the one the apostles refuted! It was the Judaizers, not the apostles, who argued for longevity – and the apostles refuted them en masse (Acts 15) and individually (Galatians 1). The argument from longevity is pointless for your position for that reason and, alternately if it were valid, any Protestant Christian could claim it, too. The Apostle Paul even went so far as to “anathematize” those who argued thusly - “Nothing new under the sun”, indeed.
I’ve endeavored to read your work very seriously, Mr. Giunta. Any strawmen are merely unintentional.
Peace.
Greetings to you. To the extent that I either misunderstood or misrepresented your positions I apologize. Although, I don’t believe I’ve done either.
You remarked that, “The only way one can possibly claim Fathers such as Augustine and Chryostom for themselves (Protestants) is by cherry-picking and decontextualizing their words, or by failing to take into account the (equally ancient) doctrine of doctrinal-development. “ My point was that the context say, of Augustine’s sermon 272 on the Lord’s Supper has nothing at all to do with the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation. (i.e. “What is seen is the corporeal species, but what is understood is the spiritual fruit.”) So it is not “decontextualizing” in the least to assert the opposite – that is that Rome either de- or re-contetxtualizes Augustine in this regard. Augustine, by your definition, is one of those “heretic[s] who denies the Real Presence” if by that you mean transubstantiation.
You further stated, “In their notion of what constitutes the Word of God (not "Scripture Alone"), how Christians are to know what this Word is (the Magisterium), the Fathers are thoroughly Catholic.”
The noted church historian, J.N.D. Kelly, has a very different take than yours: “These developments might suggest that the tradition of the fathers was coming to be treated as authoritative in its own right. Such a reading of the evidence would, however, be mistaken. Great as was the respect paid to the fathers, there was no question of their being regarded as having access to truths other than those already contained, explicitly or implicitly, in Scripture…Theodoret for his part crystallized his position in the statement, ‘I yield obedience to Holy Scripture alone’. (Early Christian Doctrines, 5th ed., p. 49)
That sounds an awful lot like Luther, don’t you agree?
And as far as the Magisterium goes, even Catholic scholars admit that there was no such thing as a monarchical episcopate in Rome until the middle of the 2nd century. Hans Küng teaches that the first “real pope” was Leo I at the end of the 5th century and Professor Colin Morris is skeptical that the mechanism for a teaching authority in Rome existed before the 12th century. The point of all this is, with regard to the ECF’s, it was certainly not the bishop of Rome or the “catholic magiesterium” that taught anyone what the Word of God is.
I’m sad to say that you did, in fact, “conflate Protestantism with early Christian heresies. You said, “Among the early heresies you do indeed find precursors to Protestant dogma, though not the same combination of doctrines one finds today in the Protestant denominations.”
I’m not sure what the point of that is since it could just as easily be said of Rome – and with more than precursors. After all, Pope Zosimus published an encyclical supporting the heretic Pelagius, only to be overturned by the Emperor Honorius. It is one of the great ironies of patristic history, don’t you think, that a secular emperor saved the head of the “Catholic” church from eternal heresy? God works in mysterious ways.
Lastly, your argument for longevity is very ironic. Ironic in the sense that Rome claims to be the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic” church but your argument is exactly the one the apostles refuted! It was the Judaizers, not the apostles, who argued for longevity – and the apostles refuted them en masse (Acts 15) and individually (Galatians 1). The argument from longevity is pointless for your position for that reason and, alternately if it were valid, any Protestant Christian could claim it, too. The Apostle Paul even went so far as to “anathematize” those who argued thusly - “Nothing new under the sun”, indeed.
I’ve endeavored to read your work very seriously, Mr. Giunta. Any strawmen are merely unintentional.
Peace.
7.14.2009 | 8:27pm
Constantine says:
Frank Beckwith’s pithy phrase – “It is not that the Catholic faith is true because it is old. Rather, it is old because it is true.” – presents a rather thorny dilemma for the Catholic apologist.
One of the chief difficulties the Apostles faced was with a group known as the Judaizers who were willing enough to accept Christ as Messiah so long as that was done IN ADDITION to adherence to the “old” Mosaic Law. (See Acts 15) After all they believed the truth that Jesus was the fulfillment of the Old Testament and that He confirmed every jot and tittle of it. You see, their argument, to use Dr. Beckwith’s phrase, was that they had the “organic continuity of institution, faith, creed, and Scripture over time.” But the Apostles strove mightily to reject this line of thinking with Paul even placing its adherents under anathema (Galatians 1).
So the nub of the dilemma is this – if continuity over time is a proper apologetic why was it rejected by those closest to Jesus? And why does a church that claims an apostolic heritage use a non-apostolic apologetic?
Peace.
One of the chief difficulties the Apostles faced was with a group known as the Judaizers who were willing enough to accept Christ as Messiah so long as that was done IN ADDITION to adherence to the “old” Mosaic Law. (See Acts 15) After all they believed the truth that Jesus was the fulfillment of the Old Testament and that He confirmed every jot and tittle of it. You see, their argument, to use Dr. Beckwith’s phrase, was that they had the “organic continuity of institution, faith, creed, and Scripture over time.” But the Apostles strove mightily to reject this line of thinking with Paul even placing its adherents under anathema (Galatians 1).
So the nub of the dilemma is this – if continuity over time is a proper apologetic why was it rejected by those closest to Jesus? And why does a church that claims an apostolic heritage use a non-apostolic apologetic?
Peace.
7.14.2009 | 8:51pm
Constantine says:
This is a response to Dr. Beckwith’s response to George….
Surely the apostles and followers of Jesus had some notion of “christology” however ill formed or subconscious it may have been. And certainly those present at Pentecost would have had a like awareness of the Holy Spirit, however indescribable it may have been to them and those that came after. And for those reasons I feel that the comparison made between those two doctrines and that of the Roman priesthood must fall short. It is not conceivable, I think, that Peter or James or Andrew would have had any idea that they could consecrate a host or forgive a sin (after all, Luke recorded their Scriptural understanding of that matter in his Gospel: “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” Luke 5:21.)
So while Christology and Trinitarian doctrines did certainly evolve, they did so from a sound footing. To claim the same for the Roman priesthood is to do an “about face” on the first pope and then evolve backwards.
Peace.
Surely the apostles and followers of Jesus had some notion of “christology” however ill formed or subconscious it may have been. And certainly those present at Pentecost would have had a like awareness of the Holy Spirit, however indescribable it may have been to them and those that came after. And for those reasons I feel that the comparison made between those two doctrines and that of the Roman priesthood must fall short. It is not conceivable, I think, that Peter or James or Andrew would have had any idea that they could consecrate a host or forgive a sin (after all, Luke recorded their Scriptural understanding of that matter in his Gospel: “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” Luke 5:21.)
So while Christology and Trinitarian doctrines did certainly evolve, they did so from a sound footing. To claim the same for the Roman priesthood is to do an “about face” on the first pope and then evolve backwards.
Peace.
7.15.2009 | 7:31am
Stephen Tuzynski says:
Constantine:
The Judaizers, really? Tsk tsk. Paul is at great pains to show that his doctrine of justification by faith traces all the way back to Abraham, that the opening of the door to the Gentiles is fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah. The author of Hebrews takes great pains to show the Melchizedek priesthood and sacrifice of Christ is not only superior to that of the Levites, but that it was prophesied in the OT scriptures. In short, the NT authors bend over backwards to show that the faith flows from and is continuous with the OT, right down to the "circumcision of the heart" prophesied by Moses himself.
As for "It is not conceivable, I think, that Peter or James or Andrew would have had any idea that they could consecrate a host or forgive a sin..." read James 5:13-16, where he explicitly says that the prayer of the elders will result in the forgiveness of sin. On the doctrine of the real presence, see 1 Cor 11:23-29.
The Judaizers, really? Tsk tsk. Paul is at great pains to show that his doctrine of justification by faith traces all the way back to Abraham, that the opening of the door to the Gentiles is fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah. The author of Hebrews takes great pains to show the Melchizedek priesthood and sacrifice of Christ is not only superior to that of the Levites, but that it was prophesied in the OT scriptures. In short, the NT authors bend over backwards to show that the faith flows from and is continuous with the OT, right down to the "circumcision of the heart" prophesied by Moses himself.
As for "It is not conceivable, I think, that Peter or James or Andrew would have had any idea that they could consecrate a host or forgive a sin..." read James 5:13-16, where he explicitly says that the prayer of the elders will result in the forgiveness of sin. On the doctrine of the real presence, see 1 Cor 11:23-29.
7.19.2009 | 8:51am
Devin Rose says:
George Welborn (way up in the comments said),
"2. Let me correct a common misunderstanding. Catholics state, 'we are sinners saved by grace'. Evangelicals would say we are Saints who will be saved by faith through grace'. This one example illustrates the huge Theological difference between our two communions."
I didn't see anyone address this, but as a convert from Evangelical Protestantism to Catholicism, this is the first time I have ever heard an Evangelical say that we "will be saved BY faith THROUGH grace"--all Evangelicals I have ever heard have followed Ephesians 2:8 in saying that "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God", which Catholics of course agree with, as well.
I almost thought it was a typo, but Mr. Welborn clearly distinguishes it from Catholics who say we are saved BY grace.
Sola Gratia--that we are saved by grace alone--is believed by both Catholics and Protestants: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/03/sola-gratia/
"2. Let me correct a common misunderstanding. Catholics state, 'we are sinners saved by grace'. Evangelicals would say we are Saints who will be saved by faith through grace'. This one example illustrates the huge Theological difference between our two communions."
I didn't see anyone address this, but as a convert from Evangelical Protestantism to Catholicism, this is the first time I have ever heard an Evangelical say that we "will be saved BY faith THROUGH grace"--all Evangelicals I have ever heard have followed Ephesians 2:8 in saying that "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God", which Catholics of course agree with, as well.
I almost thought it was a typo, but Mr. Welborn clearly distinguishes it from Catholics who say we are saved BY grace.
Sola Gratia--that we are saved by grace alone--is believed by both Catholics and Protestants: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/03/sola-gratia/
7.21.2009 | 12:38pm
George Welborn says:
Devin,
My choice of words was quite deliberate. I am not a Calvinist or a Catholic. The Assemblies of God is a type of Arminian church This means that we do not believe in double predestination, once saved - always saved, or unconditional election. Therefore if a person does not remain in the faith, he will not be saved. Many Protestants and Catholics only have an intellectual ascension type of faith. They do not have the God type of faith that is required for salvation. My experience is that many Catholics and some Protestants vacillate between fatalism and a works based faith.
Unfortunately the Protestants who convert to Catholicism fail to realize that they are submitting to the heresy of the Nicolaitans. These converts are usually not qualified to articulate the difference between the 3 hermeneutical principles discussed in my previous post. Furthermore they are not in a position to recognize the warning of Paul to the Colossians.
Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Catholicism is the merging of Aristotelian philosophy, with the deceit of forged decretals( Donation of Constantine, Decretals of Isadore, Acts of Peter and Paul, Clementine Recognitions, etc), and the Superstitious tradition of Medievalists. These Catholics think they are following Christ but the Bible says, clearly in Matthew.
Matt 7
15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
- I ask myself why Catholics can not recognize that there people are false prophets, especially considering that 25% of the Priests are Homosexual, 4% of all Priests were involved in child abuse, the Inquistion from 1200-1800, and numerous other evidence. I can only conclude those that there hardened hearts has blinded their eyes and ears to the truth and they await the judgment of Matthew 7:23
My choice of words was quite deliberate. I am not a Calvinist or a Catholic. The Assemblies of God is a type of Arminian church This means that we do not believe in double predestination, once saved - always saved, or unconditional election. Therefore if a person does not remain in the faith, he will not be saved. Many Protestants and Catholics only have an intellectual ascension type of faith. They do not have the God type of faith that is required for salvation. My experience is that many Catholics and some Protestants vacillate between fatalism and a works based faith.
Unfortunately the Protestants who convert to Catholicism fail to realize that they are submitting to the heresy of the Nicolaitans. These converts are usually not qualified to articulate the difference between the 3 hermeneutical principles discussed in my previous post. Furthermore they are not in a position to recognize the warning of Paul to the Colossians.
Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Catholicism is the merging of Aristotelian philosophy, with the deceit of forged decretals( Donation of Constantine, Decretals of Isadore, Acts of Peter and Paul, Clementine Recognitions, etc), and the Superstitious tradition of Medievalists. These Catholics think they are following Christ but the Bible says, clearly in Matthew.
Matt 7
15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
- I ask myself why Catholics can not recognize that there people are false prophets, especially considering that 25% of the Priests are Homosexual, 4% of all Priests were involved in child abuse, the Inquistion from 1200-1800, and numerous other evidence. I can only conclude those that there hardened hearts has blinded their eyes and ears to the truth and they await the judgment of Matthew 7:23
7.21.2009 | 6:15pm
Robberson says:
George Welborn-Just accidentally clicked on my bookmark for these posts and was surprised to see you still "hammering" all of God's children-including yourself. You sir are a child of God as am I and the entire human race! Please cease and desist your attacks upon all who may disagree with you or your denomination. A word of advice, to reach a person's heart, mind and soul one must have love for them. I love you sir, not because I agree with you or the way you attack others BUT because God loves you. And, because He loves you, no matter what you do or say that is my calling as a disciple.
Peace to you Mr. Welborn and I ask for you to pray for me as I do you.
Peace to you Mr. Welborn and I ask for you to pray for me as I do you.
7.21.2009 | 6:58pm
Robberson says:
Mr. Welborn, I heard that Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, and Benny Hinn all were AG ministers. Not criticizing your denomination but rather just curious. Do you know?
7.24.2009 | 7:14am
George Welborn says:
Robberson:
I would like to respond but the moderator is preventing me from doing so. I will just say the TRUTH is sometimes very painful.
All the best!
George
I would like to respond but the moderator is preventing me from doing so. I will just say the TRUTH is sometimes very painful.
All the best!
George
7.25.2009 | 10:38am
Eric Giunta says:
Mr. Constantine:
I appreciate your clarifications, but I think they are (unintentionally) misleading. As well, you seem to have completely overlooked my point on doctrinal development.
We should not be shocked that Augustine did not employ the language of Aristotelian metaphysics to describe the Real, substantial Pressence of Christ in the Eucharist, any more than we should be scandalized by the fact that the Apostles did not describe Christ's relationship to his Father in terms of consubstantiality.
When the Church of Christ dogmatizes a doctrine, she does not dogmatize the wording, but rather the truth behind it.And so yes, as far as we can tell Augustine's doctrine of the Real Pressence was substantially (no pun intended) the same as Thomas Aquinas's, and the same with the Catholic Church holds today. No serious Catholic believes that Aristotelian metaphysics is the only plausible way by which one may understand the Real Presence, any more than Platonic metaphysics is the only way one may understand Christ's relationship to His Father (as Word, or Logos).
I can't see how your quotation from Augustine contradicts the so-called "Roman" doctrine. The change from bread-and-wine to Body-and-Blood is in fact spiritual, as is our reception of it, but this does not make the change any less substantial. When you say someone is a "spiritual" person, do you mean to say he doesn't exist, or at any rate doesn't have a true body?
Suffice it to say that the Doctor of Grace has many, MANY more things to say about the Eucharist than your one-liner. A simple Google search will clear up the matter.
With all due respect, I wonder whether you have ever taken the time to read Kelly's magisterial work, from which you cite. I have, and how one coul come away from it thinking the early Church was Protestant, or proto-Protestant, is beyond me. Kelly's remarks make perfect sense when one distinguishes between what later theologians would call material and formal sufficiency. There is indeed a sense in which one can speak of "sola scriptura" in a manner that is compatible with Catholic doctrine. Several of the Fathers, along with Catholic theologians since, were of the conviction that although Scripture was a privileged "part" of the greater Tradition, there was still a sense in which the whole was contained in this part, and so it could be said that all the truths of the Faith were at least IMPLICITLY contained in the Scriptures.
It will be noted that your citation from Kelly suggests as much: "truths other than those already contained, explicitly or IMPLICITLY, in Scripture". It will also be noted that in the pages preceding that passage, Kelly is quite clear:
"It should be unnecessary to accumulate further evidence. Throughout the whole period Scripture and tradition ranked as complementary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the surest clue to its interpretation, for in tradition the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an unerring grasp of the real purport and meaning of the revelation to which Scripture and tradition alike bore witness" [pp. 47-48]
As for the Fathers themselves, see: http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp
The Fathers could never appeal to "sola scriptura" in a Protestant sense for no other reason that the Fathers (at least before the 5th century) did not even POSSESS a Scripture, as we Christians today understand the term.
Finally, I am well aware that there are many scholars, even some Catholics, who claim that Rome did not possess a so-called "monarchical episcopate" before the 2nd century, though I would not exactly consider a Kung a Catholic in good standing with his church.
What can I say? Most "scholars" believe that Jesus of Nazareth wasn't really born of a virgin. I for one am not convinced of either of these consensuses, built as they are from silence, and ignoring some very important implications from the writings of Fathers we do possess. For starters, we have an early succession list from Ireneaus, who was a disciple of Saint Polycarp, who was himself a disciple of the Apostle John.Secondly, we Ignatius's letter to the Romans. (Ignatius was also a disciple of John.) Much is made of the fact that this is the sole letter in which Ignatius does not address the local church's monarchical bishop, but there could be any number of reasons why that would be the case. Ignatius might not have known the name of the bishop who was reigning at that moment, he might have felt it imprudent to publish it (in a time of persecution), the possibilities are endless. But we know from Ignatius's other writings that he believed a local community could not be called a church unless it was governed by the three-fold order of bishop, elder, and deacon. The fact that he considered Rome a church must mean that he knew such a three-fold structure was in place there.
(I'm assuming you do have cursory knowledge of basic patrology, so I haven't bothered with citations, though I will provide them if you'd like me to.)
So the early church did have a very "Catholic" magisterium: the bishops of the world, with the Roman bishop holding some sort of primacy over them, a primacy whose exact nature became clearer and clearer with the passing of time. This is far from the standard Protestant orthodoxy, where congregations are more or less autonomous, not accountable to anyone but themselves.
Again I stress that none of this is to say that the church of say, the 2nd century, was a carbon-copy of what the Catholic Church is today. Rather, the formal is the seminal form of the latter.
Doctrinal development, anyone?
I appreciate your clarifications, but I think they are (unintentionally) misleading. As well, you seem to have completely overlooked my point on doctrinal development.
We should not be shocked that Augustine did not employ the language of Aristotelian metaphysics to describe the Real, substantial Pressence of Christ in the Eucharist, any more than we should be scandalized by the fact that the Apostles did not describe Christ's relationship to his Father in terms of consubstantiality.
When the Church of Christ dogmatizes a doctrine, she does not dogmatize the wording, but rather the truth behind it.And so yes, as far as we can tell Augustine's doctrine of the Real Pressence was substantially (no pun intended) the same as Thomas Aquinas's, and the same with the Catholic Church holds today. No serious Catholic believes that Aristotelian metaphysics is the only plausible way by which one may understand the Real Presence, any more than Platonic metaphysics is the only way one may understand Christ's relationship to His Father (as Word, or Logos).
I can't see how your quotation from Augustine contradicts the so-called "Roman" doctrine. The change from bread-and-wine to Body-and-Blood is in fact spiritual, as is our reception of it, but this does not make the change any less substantial. When you say someone is a "spiritual" person, do you mean to say he doesn't exist, or at any rate doesn't have a true body?
Suffice it to say that the Doctor of Grace has many, MANY more things to say about the Eucharist than your one-liner. A simple Google search will clear up the matter.
With all due respect, I wonder whether you have ever taken the time to read Kelly's magisterial work, from which you cite. I have, and how one coul come away from it thinking the early Church was Protestant, or proto-Protestant, is beyond me. Kelly's remarks make perfect sense when one distinguishes between what later theologians would call material and formal sufficiency. There is indeed a sense in which one can speak of "sola scriptura" in a manner that is compatible with Catholic doctrine. Several of the Fathers, along with Catholic theologians since, were of the conviction that although Scripture was a privileged "part" of the greater Tradition, there was still a sense in which the whole was contained in this part, and so it could be said that all the truths of the Faith were at least IMPLICITLY contained in the Scriptures.
It will be noted that your citation from Kelly suggests as much: "truths other than those already contained, explicitly or IMPLICITLY, in Scripture". It will also be noted that in the pages preceding that passage, Kelly is quite clear:
"It should be unnecessary to accumulate further evidence. Throughout the whole period Scripture and tradition ranked as complementary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the surest clue to its interpretation, for in tradition the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an unerring grasp of the real purport and meaning of the revelation to which Scripture and tradition alike bore witness" [pp. 47-48]
As for the Fathers themselves, see: http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp
The Fathers could never appeal to "sola scriptura" in a Protestant sense for no other reason that the Fathers (at least before the 5th century) did not even POSSESS a Scripture, as we Christians today understand the term.
Finally, I am well aware that there are many scholars, even some Catholics, who claim that Rome did not possess a so-called "monarchical episcopate" before the 2nd century, though I would not exactly consider a Kung a Catholic in good standing with his church.
What can I say? Most "scholars" believe that Jesus of Nazareth wasn't really born of a virgin. I for one am not convinced of either of these consensuses, built as they are from silence, and ignoring some very important implications from the writings of Fathers we do possess. For starters, we have an early succession list from Ireneaus, who was a disciple of Saint Polycarp, who was himself a disciple of the Apostle John.Secondly, we Ignatius's letter to the Romans. (Ignatius was also a disciple of John.) Much is made of the fact that this is the sole letter in which Ignatius does not address the local church's monarchical bishop, but there could be any number of reasons why that would be the case. Ignatius might not have known the name of the bishop who was reigning at that moment, he might have felt it imprudent to publish it (in a time of persecution), the possibilities are endless. But we know from Ignatius's other writings that he believed a local community could not be called a church unless it was governed by the three-fold order of bishop, elder, and deacon. The fact that he considered Rome a church must mean that he knew such a three-fold structure was in place there.
(I'm assuming you do have cursory knowledge of basic patrology, so I haven't bothered with citations, though I will provide them if you'd like me to.)
So the early church did have a very "Catholic" magisterium: the bishops of the world, with the Roman bishop holding some sort of primacy over them, a primacy whose exact nature became clearer and clearer with the passing of time. This is far from the standard Protestant orthodoxy, where congregations are more or less autonomous, not accountable to anyone but themselves.
Again I stress that none of this is to say that the church of say, the 2nd century, was a carbon-copy of what the Catholic Church is today. Rather, the formal is the seminal form of the latter.
Doctrinal development, anyone?
7.25.2009 | 1:25pm
George Welborn says:
Robberson:
Just to clarify: It is quaint to say that we are 'all God's children'. However, the Bible and Jesus say something completely different in John 8:44. Actually it says the exact opposite.
John 8:44 -"You belong to your father the devil, and you want to carry out the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning and has never stood for truth, since there is no truth in him. Whenever he tells a lie he speaks in character, because he is a liar and the father of lies."
So it seems fairly clear that those that practice either Orthodox Protestantism or Catholicism, NOT both, can be children of God. One of us is practicing false Christianity.
Just to clarify: It is quaint to say that we are 'all God's children'. However, the Bible and Jesus say something completely different in John 8:44. Actually it says the exact opposite.
John 8:44 -"You belong to your father the devil, and you want to carry out the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning and has never stood for truth, since there is no truth in him. Whenever he tells a lie he speaks in character, because he is a liar and the father of lies."
So it seems fairly clear that those that practice either Orthodox Protestantism or Catholicism, NOT both, can be children of God. One of us is practicing false Christianity.
7.25.2009 | 5:27pm
George Welborn says:
Eric:
I would love to meet you in a court of law and go at it with you, but the moderator limits me. So let me explain something. ALL Protestant churches believe in bishop, elder, deacon, just like your man Ignatius. Did Ignatius mention a Pope? Did he mention even the Bishop of Rome? No he did not! Pope is a Medieval invention!
Furthermore the Ignatian Epistles are probably a forgery because of several facts.
Inconsistencies with Ignatius story.
1. Ignatius is condemned to death in Antioch and sent to Rome for execution:
Why would someone condemned "for the sake of the common Name and hope" (Ephes.1:2) be sent away to Rome?
According to Ac25:10-12 and the famous Pliny's letter about Christians, Roman citizens could go to Rome for judgment, but NOT for execution after being condemned somewhere else. And answering the aforementioned letter, emperor Trajan did not reprimand Pliny for not sending to Rome the convicted Christians!
Ignatius' condemnation is about becoming food for the wild beasts. Would that mean having to go to Rome for that?
In the spurious 'Acts of Paul & Thecla', the heroine, Thecla, is thrown to the beasts in the arena of Antioch, the city of Ignatius. The author certainly thought this kind of things could happen there!
Also, in a more realistic account, as related in Eusebius' HC, 5, 1, Christians in Gallic cities were executed there by being offered to wild beasts, towards the end of the second century.
2. Ignatius, as a prisoner, is the host of Christian clerics:
Ignatius, as a condemned man because of his faith, is allowed to talk with small groups of prominent Christians (or the whole community, as for Philadelphia!) and even issue letters propagating his reprimanded beliefs!
3.None of the Epistles mentioned the Roman bishop : there is no mention he exists. So is this not odd for Catholic who claim Rome held some pre-eminence because of Peter and Paul.
The only conclusion is that these Epistles are clever forgeries.
Best Regards,
George
I would love to meet you in a court of law and go at it with you, but the moderator limits me. So let me explain something. ALL Protestant churches believe in bishop, elder, deacon, just like your man Ignatius. Did Ignatius mention a Pope? Did he mention even the Bishop of Rome? No he did not! Pope is a Medieval invention!
Furthermore the Ignatian Epistles are probably a forgery because of several facts.
Inconsistencies with Ignatius story.
1. Ignatius is condemned to death in Antioch and sent to Rome for execution:
Why would someone condemned "for the sake of the common Name and hope" (Ephes.1:2) be sent away to Rome?
According to Ac25:10-12 and the famous Pliny's letter about Christians, Roman citizens could go to Rome for judgment, but NOT for execution after being condemned somewhere else. And answering the aforementioned letter, emperor Trajan did not reprimand Pliny for not sending to Rome the convicted Christians!
Ignatius' condemnation is about becoming food for the wild beasts. Would that mean having to go to Rome for that?
In the spurious 'Acts of Paul & Thecla', the heroine, Thecla, is thrown to the beasts in the arena of Antioch, the city of Ignatius. The author certainly thought this kind of things could happen there!
Also, in a more realistic account, as related in Eusebius' HC, 5, 1, Christians in Gallic cities were executed there by being offered to wild beasts, towards the end of the second century.
2. Ignatius, as a prisoner, is the host of Christian clerics:
Ignatius, as a condemned man because of his faith, is allowed to talk with small groups of prominent Christians (or the whole community, as for Philadelphia!) and even issue letters propagating his reprimanded beliefs!
3.None of the Epistles mentioned the Roman bishop : there is no mention he exists. So is this not odd for Catholic who claim Rome held some pre-eminence because of Peter and Paul.
The only conclusion is that these Epistles are clever forgeries.
Best Regards,
George
7.25.2009 | 6:15pm
Robberson says:
George Welborn,
I should have said : “You sir are a “creation” of God as am I and the entire human race!”
You should have said: “So it seems fairly clear that those that practice either Orthodox Protestantism or Catholicism, NOT both, can be children of God. One of us “ I think” is practicing false Christianity.”
I offer the following scriptures to you and others in order that all believers, regardless of denomination might “come together” in love and not fall into Satan’s trap of “doctrinal separation”.
Colossians 1:16 “For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. “
Genesis 1:26 “Then God said, "Let us make human beings in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. “
John 1:12 “Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—
Luke 6:37 "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned.”
Luke 6:35-36 “But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.”
Kids from the same family shouldn't fight at the dinner table!!!!
I should have said : “You sir are a “creation” of God as am I and the entire human race!”
You should have said: “So it seems fairly clear that those that practice either Orthodox Protestantism or Catholicism, NOT both, can be children of God. One of us “ I think” is practicing false Christianity.”
I offer the following scriptures to you and others in order that all believers, regardless of denomination might “come together” in love and not fall into Satan’s trap of “doctrinal separation”.
Colossians 1:16 “For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. “
Genesis 1:26 “Then God said, "Let us make human beings in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. “
John 1:12 “Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—
Luke 6:37 "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned.”
Luke 6:35-36 “But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.”
Kids from the same family shouldn't fight at the dinner table!!!!
7.26.2009 | 7:45am
George Welborn says:
Robberson:
I don't think that Catholics are from the same family as Evangelicals. Let me remind you of some other examples.
1. Jesus rejected both Pharisees and Sadducees.
2.Paul rejected Judaizers. The Judaizers believed in Jesus and other Orthodox doctrine.
3. John rejected Nicolaitans who also believed in Jesus.
4. During the Council of Trent Catholics rejected Protestants, similarly Protestants rejected Catholics.
It is only recently, Vatican II, that Catholics accept Protestants as separated brethren. I find this quite unusual. What this says, is that Catholics were unable to recognize Protestants as separated brethren for about 450 years. On the flip side, the Assemblies of God, Southern Baptists, etc do not recognize Catholics as Brethren. However these same Assemblies of God accept Baptists as brothers in Christ and vice-versa.
I think you fail to understand that the Judaizers were rejected for adding to the gospel message. Similarly Catholics are also rejected for adding to the gospel message. Additions include Papacy( Nicolaitan heresy), Sacraments( Pagan practice), Marian devotions( more Paganism), infant baptism, and modification to the Word of God( Latin Vulgate).
Let us see what the Bible says:
"You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you." Deuteronomy 4:2
"...if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed." Galatians 1:9
"For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you may well put up with it!" 2 Corinthians 11:4 [I.e. don't tolerate heresy]
"Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it." Deuteronomy 12:32
"Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar." Proverbs 30:5-6
"If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Revelation 22:18-19
--So as a good Protestant it is my Christian duty to reject heresy and any church that practices such heresy.
I don't think that Catholics are from the same family as Evangelicals. Let me remind you of some other examples.
1. Jesus rejected both Pharisees and Sadducees.
2.Paul rejected Judaizers. The Judaizers believed in Jesus and other Orthodox doctrine.
3. John rejected Nicolaitans who also believed in Jesus.
4. During the Council of Trent Catholics rejected Protestants, similarly Protestants rejected Catholics.
It is only recently, Vatican II, that Catholics accept Protestants as separated brethren. I find this quite unusual. What this says, is that Catholics were unable to recognize Protestants as separated brethren for about 450 years. On the flip side, the Assemblies of God, Southern Baptists, etc do not recognize Catholics as Brethren. However these same Assemblies of God accept Baptists as brothers in Christ and vice-versa.
I think you fail to understand that the Judaizers were rejected for adding to the gospel message. Similarly Catholics are also rejected for adding to the gospel message. Additions include Papacy( Nicolaitan heresy), Sacraments( Pagan practice), Marian devotions( more Paganism), infant baptism, and modification to the Word of God( Latin Vulgate).
Let us see what the Bible says:
"You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you." Deuteronomy 4:2
"...if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed." Galatians 1:9
"For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you may well put up with it!" 2 Corinthians 11:4 [I.e. don't tolerate heresy]
"Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it." Deuteronomy 12:32
"Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar." Proverbs 30:5-6
"If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Revelation 22:18-19
--So as a good Protestant it is my Christian duty to reject heresy and any church that practices such heresy.
7.26.2009 | 12:17pm
Eric Giunta says:
Mr. Welborn:
I am not a certified scholar of Patristics, and it is apparent you aren't either. I for one will not, on this forum, entertain the hypothesis that the Ignatian epistles are forgeries. I don't know of any serious modern scholar of patristics who considers them such.
Get your head out of 19th-century anti-Catholic polemic, and maybe I'll engage you in a serious discussion.
What next, you're going to cite Pope Joan as evidence the papal succession has been invalidated?!
I am not a certified scholar of Patristics, and it is apparent you aren't either. I for one will not, on this forum, entertain the hypothesis that the Ignatian epistles are forgeries. I don't know of any serious modern scholar of patristics who considers them such.
Get your head out of 19th-century anti-Catholic polemic, and maybe I'll engage you in a serious discussion.
What next, you're going to cite Pope Joan as evidence the papal succession has been invalidated?!
7.26.2009 | 2:25pm
Robberson says:
George Welborn,
I mean no offense but it seems to me, you are often talking "at" me rather than "to" me :)
Question, since time is no barrier to God etc. etc., if I die in my present state i.e. not being a child of God because I am a Catholic (and I mean die by human definition, not by God's definition since I don't know what that is. After all he brought folks back after we humans said they were gone), will I have a chance to "leave my church/core beliefs" and "join your church/core beliefs" before God says "bye-bye" forever?
I hope so because I admit I get confused by all this theology stuff going "back and forth". And besides each of us just "might" need a little extra time before His Throne of Grace to "get it just right"
I mean no offense but it seems to me, you are often talking "at" me rather than "to" me :)
Question, since time is no barrier to God etc. etc., if I die in my present state i.e. not being a child of God because I am a Catholic (and I mean die by human definition, not by God's definition since I don't know what that is. After all he brought folks back after we humans said they were gone), will I have a chance to "leave my church/core beliefs" and "join your church/core beliefs" before God says "bye-bye" forever?
I hope so because I admit I get confused by all this theology stuff going "back and forth". And besides each of us just "might" need a little extra time before His Throne of Grace to "get it just right"
7.26.2009 | 3:50pm
George Welborn says:
Eric:
I need not use Pope Joan to discredit Catholicism. I have made a strong case in my other posts. The issue is you are a lawyer and us such you are programmed to defend any position regardless if it is true or not.
So you try to use a subtle ad hominem by accusing me of being anti-Catholic. You have yet to refute any of my previous arguments so you are forced into name calling. Many Protestant scholars are skeptical to the authenticity of the Ignatian Epistles, including Schaff. I may not be a scholar on Patristics, however my Russian Orthodox friend is, and has seen the original documents. He says that the Ignationa Epistles that Catholics site is only found in one document, translated into Latin. The Greek original is lost. Furthermore the Roman Church has an extensive history of forgery, so it can not be proven conclusively that it is genuine. He says, the Russian Hermitage has the most authoritative collection of Patristic literature in the original language, not the forgeries from Rome.
Furthermore the list of Popes is open for debate. The current Vatican list of legitimate popes has Pope Benedict XVI, who was elected April 19, 2005, as the 265th pope -- with St. Peter, the Apostle, having been the first. But respected authors and widely referenced lists use other enumerations. Richard P. McBrien, the author of 'Catholicism', in his book 'Lives of the Popes,' has him as the 263rd bona fide pope. So even your Catholic scholars can't give me a definitive list of Popes. Maybe this does not bother you, but it really bothered me when I was a Catholic.
You seem to be a big fan of doctrinal development and history. Doctrinal development is better today than at any time throughout history. Protestants have studied the church fathers, re-analyzed history, and developed doctrine that has only widened the gulf between Catholics and Protestants. It is amazing that Catholics love to quote CS Lewis as some type of authority. He was a literature professor, not a Theologian and never attended any Seminary.
Evangelicals realize that the modern American is too intellectually weak to defend his or her beliefs, so the better way to win Catholics to Protestantism is to avoid the divisive topics. Modern Evangelical statistics show that only 10% of Catholics are serious about their faith, so instead of being confrontational, we target the 90% who are functionally non-Catholic and evangelize them. By thinning the ranks of Catholics it seems realistic that Catholicism will almost implode to insignificance in America within 3 or 4 generations. Therefore it is pure hubris to think that the bulk of Protestants accept Catholics as Christians. Evangelicals have a systematic battle plan to go after Catholics, by targeting Hispanics, Catholics of European descent, and lapsed Catholics. We tend to avoid the Sedevacanist at this time.
Regards,
George
I need not use Pope Joan to discredit Catholicism. I have made a strong case in my other posts. The issue is you are a lawyer and us such you are programmed to defend any position regardless if it is true or not.
So you try to use a subtle ad hominem by accusing me of being anti-Catholic. You have yet to refute any of my previous arguments so you are forced into name calling. Many Protestant scholars are skeptical to the authenticity of the Ignatian Epistles, including Schaff. I may not be a scholar on Patristics, however my Russian Orthodox friend is, and has seen the original documents. He says that the Ignationa Epistles that Catholics site is only found in one document, translated into Latin. The Greek original is lost. Furthermore the Roman Church has an extensive history of forgery, so it can not be proven conclusively that it is genuine. He says, the Russian Hermitage has the most authoritative collection of Patristic literature in the original language, not the forgeries from Rome.
Furthermore the list of Popes is open for debate. The current Vatican list of legitimate popes has Pope Benedict XVI, who was elected April 19, 2005, as the 265th pope -- with St. Peter, the Apostle, having been the first. But respected authors and widely referenced lists use other enumerations. Richard P. McBrien, the author of 'Catholicism', in his book 'Lives of the Popes,' has him as the 263rd bona fide pope. So even your Catholic scholars can't give me a definitive list of Popes. Maybe this does not bother you, but it really bothered me when I was a Catholic.
You seem to be a big fan of doctrinal development and history. Doctrinal development is better today than at any time throughout history. Protestants have studied the church fathers, re-analyzed history, and developed doctrine that has only widened the gulf between Catholics and Protestants. It is amazing that Catholics love to quote CS Lewis as some type of authority. He was a literature professor, not a Theologian and never attended any Seminary.
Evangelicals realize that the modern American is too intellectually weak to defend his or her beliefs, so the better way to win Catholics to Protestantism is to avoid the divisive topics. Modern Evangelical statistics show that only 10% of Catholics are serious about their faith, so instead of being confrontational, we target the 90% who are functionally non-Catholic and evangelize them. By thinning the ranks of Catholics it seems realistic that Catholicism will almost implode to insignificance in America within 3 or 4 generations. Therefore it is pure hubris to think that the bulk of Protestants accept Catholics as Christians. Evangelicals have a systematic battle plan to go after Catholics, by targeting Hispanics, Catholics of European descent, and lapsed Catholics. We tend to avoid the Sedevacanist at this time.
Regards,
George
7.26.2009 | 8:50pm
George Welborn says:
Robberson:
I apologize for talking 'at' you. My Scandinavian nature sometimes suffers from a 'take no prisoners approach'. I admit this is one of my shortcomings.
To answer your question. Christ will woo, and give you a chance to come to the knowledge of the truth in this lifetime.
The Bible says, " Hebrews 9: 27 Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment." So it is fairly clear from the Bible that you will not have a second chance. Once you realize that this life is a test and then judgment you completely change your perspective on what is important. It took me about 10 years to become a born-again Bible Thumping Christian. My long journey included stints at Communism, Buddhism, Existentialism, and Gnosticism, Eastern Orthodox, and Coptic Orthodox. Your probably smarter than I am so it should take you a lot less time.
I would encourage you to attend a Protestant church for 9 consecutive weeks before forming an opinion. If you have further questions you can email me at nordicbriefcase@hotmail.com .
Best Regards,
George
I apologize for talking 'at' you. My Scandinavian nature sometimes suffers from a 'take no prisoners approach'. I admit this is one of my shortcomings.
To answer your question. Christ will woo, and give you a chance to come to the knowledge of the truth in this lifetime.
The Bible says, " Hebrews 9: 27 Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment." So it is fairly clear from the Bible that you will not have a second chance. Once you realize that this life is a test and then judgment you completely change your perspective on what is important. It took me about 10 years to become a born-again Bible Thumping Christian. My long journey included stints at Communism, Buddhism, Existentialism, and Gnosticism, Eastern Orthodox, and Coptic Orthodox. Your probably smarter than I am so it should take you a lot less time.
I would encourage you to attend a Protestant church for 9 consecutive weeks before forming an opinion. If you have further questions you can email me at nordicbriefcase@hotmail.com .
Best Regards,
George
7.26.2009 | 11:41pm
Robberson says:
George Welborn, thanks for sincere the comments. Sounds like you have had quite a diverse path. Often, we all have a struggle particularly when we "feel" weak in our faith, at least I have. Mother Teresa did as well and once said she- "converted her feelings of abandonment "BY" God into acts of abandonment "TO" God.
Best to you,
Robberson
Best to you,
Robberson
7.28.2009 | 5:35am
George Welborn says:
Eric:
Here is a direct quote from newadvent.com( A trusted Catholic source)
"The oldest collection of the writings of St. Ignatius known to have existed was that made use of by the historian Eusebius in the first half of the fourth century, but which unfortunately is no longer extant. It was made up of the seven letters written byIgnatius whilst on his way to Rome; These letters were addressed to the Christians
* of Ephesus (Pros Ephesious);
* of Magnesia (Magnesieusin);
* of Tralles (Trallianois);
* of Rome (Pros Romaious);
* of Philadelphia (Philadelpheusin);
* of Smyrna (Smyrnaiois); and
* to Polycarp (Pros Polykarpon).
We find these seven mentioned not only by Eusebius (Church History III.36) but also by St. Jerome (De viris illust., c. xvi). Of later collections of Ignatian letters which have been preserved, the oldest is known as the "long recension". This collection, the author of which is unknown, dates from the latter part of the fourth century. It contains the seven genuine and six spurious letters, but even the genuineepistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of its author. For this reason they are incapable of bearing witness to the original form."
--- This is incredible. NewAdvent admits that it is impossible to determine what is genuine from what is forged among the Ignatian Epistles.
Here is a direct quote from newadvent.com( A trusted Catholic source)
"The oldest collection of the writings of St. Ignatius known to have existed was that made use of by the historian Eusebius in the first half of the fourth century, but which unfortunately is no longer extant. It was made up of the seven letters written byIgnatius whilst on his way to Rome; These letters were addressed to the Christians
* of Ephesus (Pros Ephesious);
* of Magnesia (Magnesieusin);
* of Tralles (Trallianois);
* of Rome (Pros Romaious);
* of Philadelphia (Philadelpheusin);
* of Smyrna (Smyrnaiois); and
* to Polycarp (Pros Polykarpon).
We find these seven mentioned not only by Eusebius (Church History III.36) but also by St. Jerome (De viris illust., c. xvi). Of later collections of Ignatian letters which have been preserved, the oldest is known as the "long recension". This collection, the author of which is unknown, dates from the latter part of the fourth century. It contains the seven genuine and six spurious letters, but even the genuineepistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of its author. For this reason they are incapable of bearing witness to the original form."
--- This is incredible. NewAdvent admits that it is impossible to determine what is genuine from what is forged among the Ignatian Epistles.
7.28.2009 | 10:31pm
Michael Conway says:
Mr. Welborn's quote from New Advent is incomplete, out of context and misleading. Read on in New Advent in the Controversy and Content of the Letters sections, if you do not have time to read the complete article. There is no attempt by New Advent to mislead about the letters of Ignatius, they provide information on both sides of the argument. You can already guess where Calvin falls on the subject.
7.29.2009 | 9:01am
George Welborn says:
Further examples of forgery:
Cyprian like his predecessor, Tertullian, ridiculed the pagan system of a Supreme Pontiff, a Pope (pater patrum, bishop of bishops), a primacy, etc. Where his oldest MSS read: “The other apostles were indeed what Peter was: endowed with the same share of honor and jurisdiction,” we now have texts which read: “The other apostles were indeed what Peter was, but the Primacy is given to Peter.” The Catholic Encyclopedia comments that this conflated form is, of course, spurious (C. E. 4, 585). The life stories and writings of the early popes are spurious, as the Catholic Encyclopedia often admits under their names.
The earliest Roman rituals (8th cent.) are spurious, falsely attributed to Popes Leo, Gelasius, and Gregory (Migne P.L. 55 & 74 & 78).
When scholars speak of an authentic work they do not imply that the text has come to us in its original form. Manuscripts were seldom copied for the sake of preservation, but rather for use as textbooks. Obsolete teachings and expressions were altered, while so-called “heretical” teachings were allowed to become extinct.
My point is that the foundation of Catholicism rests on blatant distortions of history. I personally have seen the oldest Ignatian Epistles and it is clear that they have been interpolated at least 3 to 4 times. It is impossible to determine what the EXACT original text was. Furthermore the oldest manuscript was maintained by a heretical sect known for forging documents.
I find it amazing if the Catholic Church claims to be the true church that she did do a better job of preserving the Original Greek texts.
The real issue is that American Catholics, unlike their European counterparts, live in denial concerning these blatant forgeries. Protestants and Eastern Orthodox are very aware of these forgeries and Rome remains unapologetic and unrepentant.
Again I ask someone on this blog to refute my claims. Otherwise I would encourage you to run like 'Hell' out of the RCC.
Cyprian like his predecessor, Tertullian, ridiculed the pagan system of a Supreme Pontiff, a Pope (pater patrum, bishop of bishops), a primacy, etc. Where his oldest MSS read: “The other apostles were indeed what Peter was: endowed with the same share of honor and jurisdiction,” we now have texts which read: “The other apostles were indeed what Peter was, but the Primacy is given to Peter.” The Catholic Encyclopedia comments that this conflated form is, of course, spurious (C. E. 4, 585). The life stories and writings of the early popes are spurious, as the Catholic Encyclopedia often admits under their names.
The earliest Roman rituals (8th cent.) are spurious, falsely attributed to Popes Leo, Gelasius, and Gregory (Migne P.L. 55 & 74 & 78).
When scholars speak of an authentic work they do not imply that the text has come to us in its original form. Manuscripts were seldom copied for the sake of preservation, but rather for use as textbooks. Obsolete teachings and expressions were altered, while so-called “heretical” teachings were allowed to become extinct.
My point is that the foundation of Catholicism rests on blatant distortions of history. I personally have seen the oldest Ignatian Epistles and it is clear that they have been interpolated at least 3 to 4 times. It is impossible to determine what the EXACT original text was. Furthermore the oldest manuscript was maintained by a heretical sect known for forging documents.
I find it amazing if the Catholic Church claims to be the true church that she did do a better job of preserving the Original Greek texts.
The real issue is that American Catholics, unlike their European counterparts, live in denial concerning these blatant forgeries. Protestants and Eastern Orthodox are very aware of these forgeries and Rome remains unapologetic and unrepentant.
Again I ask someone on this blog to refute my claims. Otherwise I would encourage you to run like 'Hell' out of the RCC.
7.30.2009 | 10:02am
George Welborn says:
Jerome coined the term Apocrypha from the Greek word for hidden, to distinguish these 14 books from both "true scripture" and other religious writings. The Pharisees who were scribes and thus custodians of the word of God for at least 500 years never considered the Apocrypha Canonical.
Furthermore most of the church fathers were Gentiles who could not read Hebrew or Greek and based on their writing it is clear that their level of scholarship was inferior to what is available today.
The reason I am an Evangelical Christian is that the facts of the Resurrection are undeniable. The Gospels are an accurate historical, moral, and Theological work describing the life, actions of Christ. The fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy in Christ's life is overwhelming evidence to the truth of the Gospels. The Epistles + Acts describe the accurate work of the church, the Holy Spirit, and what it means to be a Christian.
Of the church fathers, only Jerome and Origen could remotely be considered Theologians. Both of them rejected the Apocrypha. Even Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem and Philo rejected it. Furthermore to say that church councils are binding on everyone is a tautology. The Early church had over 300 councils and many contradicted each other. Some even said Arianism was correct. So I don't put much weight in Church Councils especially if the Catholics and Orthodox can't even agree on what constitutes the 8th church council. I place much more weight on Hermeneutics which more effective plows through the morass of philosophical, theological, and pastoral issues of the past 2000 years. Unfortunately Hermeneutics is a heady subject that probably most appreciated by Linguists, and Theologians.
Furthermore most of the church fathers were Gentiles who could not read Hebrew or Greek and based on their writing it is clear that their level of scholarship was inferior to what is available today.
The reason I am an Evangelical Christian is that the facts of the Resurrection are undeniable. The Gospels are an accurate historical, moral, and Theological work describing the life, actions of Christ. The fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy in Christ's life is overwhelming evidence to the truth of the Gospels. The Epistles + Acts describe the accurate work of the church, the Holy Spirit, and what it means to be a Christian.
Of the church fathers, only Jerome and Origen could remotely be considered Theologians. Both of them rejected the Apocrypha. Even Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem and Philo rejected it. Furthermore to say that church councils are binding on everyone is a tautology. The Early church had over 300 councils and many contradicted each other. Some even said Arianism was correct. So I don't put much weight in Church Councils especially if the Catholics and Orthodox can't even agree on what constitutes the 8th church council. I place much more weight on Hermeneutics which more effective plows through the morass of philosophical, theological, and pastoral issues of the past 2000 years. Unfortunately Hermeneutics is a heady subject that probably most appreciated by Linguists, and Theologians.
7.30.2009 | 10:32am
ND says:
Dear George,
(1) You say that we should read Phillip Schaff, because "everything I have said, is based on this book." Really, George? Surely you don't mean the Philip Schaff who said: "The authority of these [ecumenical] councils in the decision of all points of controversy was supreme and final. Their doctrinal decisions were early invested with infallibility; the promises of the Lord respecting the indestructibleness of his church, his own perpetual presence with the ministry, and the guidance of the Spirit of truth, being applied in the full sense to those councils, as representing the whole church. After the example of the apostolic council, the usual formula for a decree was: Visum est Sprirtui Sancto et nobis."
(2) You say: "You see a pattern with Athanasius, in that he states scripture as being all-sufficient to teach the truth. No appeal is made to tradition." Really? You mean the Athanasius who said: "What God has spoken by the council of Nice, abides forever." Or the Athanasius who said: "[H]old fast, every one, the faith we have received from the Fathers, which they who assembled at Nicaea recorded in writing, and endure not those who endeavour to innovate thereon. And however they may write phrases out of the Scripture, endure not their writings; however they may speak the language of the orthodox, yet attend not to what they say; for they speak not with an upright mind, but putting on such language like sheeps' clothing, in their hearts they think with Arius, after the manner of the devil, who is the author of all heresies. For he too made use of the words of Scripture, but was put to silence by our Saviour. . . . the character of apostolical men is sincere and incapable of fraud." (Circular to Bishops of Egypt and Libya 8; NPNF 2, Vol. IV)
(3) You construct an elaborate biblical theory as to why Peter never went to Rome. Yes, it is true that the Bible could be interpreted in multiple ways as to Peter's travels -- it wasn't designed to provide an obvious answer to this question. But the witness of the Fathers is unambiguous. The following all attest to Peter's presence in Rome: Clement (96 AD), Ignatius (107 AD), Dionysius (166/174 AD), Irenaeus (180 AD), Gaius (198/217 AD), Tertullian (200 AD), Clement of Alexandria. . .the list continues unabated throughout the patristic age. And no, they did not merely say that Rome was the Church of Peter and Paul in some spiritual sense. . .Tertullian referred to Peter baptizing in the Tiber! But I must be mistaken, because you have already asserted that Peter was never in Rome except to be crucified, and no second-century sources claim that he was there. Perhaps there has been some misunderstanding.
(4) You say that the Ignatian epistles are forgeries, and that the original greek has been lost, with the earliest manuscripts exiting only in Latin. Why don't you read Lightfoot at:
"http://books.google.com/books?id=vT8tAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=ignatian+epistles+lightfoot&source=bl&ots=-R04CnhXNw&sig=wtydMsA5xKEUKD2zRP7O4fhXPOI&hl=en&ei=H6xxSsT2NI7IMJGf4bAM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3"
You may find that it is your own information that is unreliable. As Harnack said: "whoever considers the Ignatian letters to be spurious, has not studied them thoroughly"
You preen and congratulate yourself on your "strategy" to convert Catholics by targeting people based on, among other things, their ethnicity. May I suggest that you add to the racial profiling that you just admitted to an additional technique: integrity. On a personal note, I would like to thank you for the help you have offered me in strengthening my continuing conversion to the Catholic faith. My attempts to verify your assertions have proved most enlightening.
(1) You say that we should read Phillip Schaff, because "everything I have said, is based on this book." Really, George? Surely you don't mean the Philip Schaff who said: "The authority of these [ecumenical] councils in the decision of all points of controversy was supreme and final. Their doctrinal decisions were early invested with infallibility; the promises of the Lord respecting the indestructibleness of his church, his own perpetual presence with the ministry, and the guidance of the Spirit of truth, being applied in the full sense to those councils, as representing the whole church. After the example of the apostolic council, the usual formula for a decree was: Visum est Sprirtui Sancto et nobis."
(2) You say: "You see a pattern with Athanasius, in that he states scripture as being all-sufficient to teach the truth. No appeal is made to tradition." Really? You mean the Athanasius who said: "What God has spoken by the council of Nice, abides forever." Or the Athanasius who said: "[H]old fast, every one, the faith we have received from the Fathers, which they who assembled at Nicaea recorded in writing, and endure not those who endeavour to innovate thereon. And however they may write phrases out of the Scripture, endure not their writings; however they may speak the language of the orthodox, yet attend not to what they say; for they speak not with an upright mind, but putting on such language like sheeps' clothing, in their hearts they think with Arius, after the manner of the devil, who is the author of all heresies. For he too made use of the words of Scripture, but was put to silence by our Saviour. . . . the character of apostolical men is sincere and incapable of fraud." (Circular to Bishops of Egypt and Libya 8; NPNF 2, Vol. IV)
(3) You construct an elaborate biblical theory as to why Peter never went to Rome. Yes, it is true that the Bible could be interpreted in multiple ways as to Peter's travels -- it wasn't designed to provide an obvious answer to this question. But the witness of the Fathers is unambiguous. The following all attest to Peter's presence in Rome: Clement (96 AD), Ignatius (107 AD), Dionysius (166/174 AD), Irenaeus (180 AD), Gaius (198/217 AD), Tertullian (200 AD), Clement of Alexandria. . .the list continues unabated throughout the patristic age. And no, they did not merely say that Rome was the Church of Peter and Paul in some spiritual sense. . .Tertullian referred to Peter baptizing in the Tiber! But I must be mistaken, because you have already asserted that Peter was never in Rome except to be crucified, and no second-century sources claim that he was there. Perhaps there has been some misunderstanding.
(4) You say that the Ignatian epistles are forgeries, and that the original greek has been lost, with the earliest manuscripts exiting only in Latin. Why don't you read Lightfoot at:
"http://books.google.com/books?id=vT8tAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=ignatian+epistles+lightfoot&source=bl&ots=-R04CnhXNw&sig=wtydMsA5xKEUKD2zRP7O4fhXPOI&hl=en&ei=H6xxSsT2NI7IMJGf4bAM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3"
You may find that it is your own information that is unreliable. As Harnack said: "whoever considers the Ignatian letters to be spurious, has not studied them thoroughly"
You preen and congratulate yourself on your "strategy" to convert Catholics by targeting people based on, among other things, their ethnicity. May I suggest that you add to the racial profiling that you just admitted to an additional technique: integrity. On a personal note, I would like to thank you for the help you have offered me in strengthening my continuing conversion to the Catholic faith. My attempts to verify your assertions have proved most enlightening.
7.30.2009 | 12:15pm
George Welborn says:
ND:
Let me quote Schaff and his opinion of the Ignatian Epistles.
Philip Schaff: Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, Introductory Note to the Syriac Version of the Ignatian Epistles:
"Some account of the discovery of the Syriac version of the Ignatian Epistles has been already given. We have simply to add here a brief description of the mss. from which the Syriac text has been printed. That which is named a by Cureton, contains only the Epistle to Polycarp, and exhibits the text of that Epistle which, after him, we have followed. He fixes its age somewhere in the first half of the sixth century, or before the year 550. The second ms., which Cureton refers to as b, is assigned by him to the seventh or eighth century. It contains the three Epistles of Ignatius, and furnishes the text here followed in the Epistles to the Ephesians and Romans. The third ms., which Cureton quotes as g, has no date, but, as he tells us, "belonged to the collection acquired by Moses of Nisibis in a.d. 931, and was written apparently about three or four centuries earlier." It contains the three Epistles to Polycarp, the Ephesians, and the Romans. The text of all these mss. is in several passages manifestly corrupt, and the translators appear at times to have mistaken the meaning of the Greek original."
-- So his comment is that they are 'manifestly corrupt'. Even NewAdvent admits there is a lot of controversy regarding these Epistles.
Let me quote Schaff and his opinion of the Ignatian Epistles.
Philip Schaff: Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, Introductory Note to the Syriac Version of the Ignatian Epistles:
"Some account of the discovery of the Syriac version of the Ignatian Epistles has been already given. We have simply to add here a brief description of the mss. from which the Syriac text has been printed. That which is named a by Cureton, contains only the Epistle to Polycarp, and exhibits the text of that Epistle which, after him, we have followed. He fixes its age somewhere in the first half of the sixth century, or before the year 550. The second ms., which Cureton refers to as b, is assigned by him to the seventh or eighth century. It contains the three Epistles of Ignatius, and furnishes the text here followed in the Epistles to the Ephesians and Romans. The third ms., which Cureton quotes as g, has no date, but, as he tells us, "belonged to the collection acquired by Moses of Nisibis in a.d. 931, and was written apparently about three or four centuries earlier." It contains the three Epistles to Polycarp, the Ephesians, and the Romans. The text of all these mss. is in several passages manifestly corrupt, and the translators appear at times to have mistaken the meaning of the Greek original."
-- So his comment is that they are 'manifestly corrupt'. Even NewAdvent admits there is a lot of controversy regarding these Epistles.
7.30.2009 | 1:23pm
George Welborn says:
ND:
You might want to consider that Irenaeus also believed that Jesus died of Old Age. If that is not heretical, I don't know what is?
Justin Martyr never mentioned Peter being in Rome. Furthermore he had several heretical beliefs.
BTW, it does not bother me that you remain Catholic. Catholicism is a good holding area for those who deny Justification by Faith and Sola Scriptura. It also makes it easier for Protestants to know where all the schismatics are.
Regards,
George
You might want to consider that Irenaeus also believed that Jesus died of Old Age. If that is not heretical, I don't know what is?
Justin Martyr never mentioned Peter being in Rome. Furthermore he had several heretical beliefs.
BTW, it does not bother me that you remain Catholic. Catholicism is a good holding area for those who deny Justification by Faith and Sola Scriptura. It also makes it easier for Protestants to know where all the schismatics are.
Regards,
George
7.30.2009 | 2:56pm
Robberson says:
Hey George!
I don't believe Jesus would have said to ND-"It also makes it easier for Protestants to know where all the schismatics are." Many of your posts appear, at least to me, to be tending towards accusatory! Is this what you really intend? I think not!
Maybe, just maybe you should "chill" a bit before posting! You are, in my opinion, seeming a bit judgemental. Regardless of your "opinions/interpretations of history/scripture this is NOT consistent with Jesus' command to "love one another".
I don't believe Jesus would have said to ND-"It also makes it easier for Protestants to know where all the schismatics are." Many of your posts appear, at least to me, to be tending towards accusatory! Is this what you really intend? I think not!
Maybe, just maybe you should "chill" a bit before posting! You are, in my opinion, seeming a bit judgemental. Regardless of your "opinions/interpretations of history/scripture this is NOT consistent with Jesus' command to "love one another".
7.30.2009 | 8:04pm
George Welborn says:
ND:
1. Catholics often think the word Tiber refers to the Tiber River in Rome. However the Sea of Galilee is called the Sea of Tiberias. Tiberias was also the official home of Peter and his brother. Since we do not have the original source and there has been significant interpolation, it is highly possible that the original is refering to Tiberias and the forgerer changed it in the Middle Ages to support his Roman agenda.
Tertullian mentions that it does not matter if one baptized in rivers or lakes. He says John baptized in Jordan[a river] and Peter baptizes in Tiber[ probably a reference to a lake.
My Russian Orthodox scholar friend says, ALL the church fathers have been interpolated and it is difficult to determine what is genuine.
Interestingly enough, Jesus only promised to protect His Word. He never promised to protect the church fathers from corruption and forgery. I think God allowed the church fathers to be forged so we would never exalt them above His Word.
2. Robberson: Yes, I may have been harsh with ND, but I think this is EXACTLY how Jesus would deal with someone who is teaching a FALSE gospel. Let me explain what Pastor Stanley would say:
A. What are the consequences of trusting a false teacher?
1. Danger: Since their primary purpose is to control and use people, false teachers don’t seek to lead others into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
2. Division: Such leaders often cause conflict that breaks up families and churches.
3. Disillusionment: They make promises on behalf of God, without telling people how to seek Him. Then, when followers gradually give up on personal time with the Lord, their lives become empty. Only Jesus Christ can fill a person.
4. Drifting: False teachers often cause believers to neglect close fellowship with God. In the absence of a vital, growing relationship with Jesus, Christians stop bearing spiritual fruit. False teaching is also destructive to those who don’t believe. When a cult leaves them feeling empty and defeated, they will think faith has failed them (1 Tim. 4:1).
B. How do we protect ourselves from false teaching?
1. Cling to God’s Word as your faithful guide in life (Titus 1:9). Don't let anything—magazines, television, sports, or even time with your family—come between you and Scripture. If you don’t make time for the Bible, you will gradually lose hope, assurance, and your spiritual foundation.
2. Study the Scriptures under a trustworthy teacher. This person should believe the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. His lifestyle should be consistent with his teaching and the Bible.
3. Refute false doctrine by comparing it to the Word. Scripture is the reliable standard for truth (2 Tim. 3:16).
4. Take precautions to protect yourself from hearing false doctrine. Second John 7-10 instructs us not to greet those who want to deceive us. If you decide to discuss faith with members of a cult, be bold in your proclamation of the truth, and don’t be drawn into fruitless debate.
-- In Summary the Bible is TRUTH, the Church Fathers have been interpolated countless times, so the question is WHO are you going to TRUST. If your pastor, priest, etc. is telling you to trust an interpolated church father more than the Bible than you are listening to a false teacher.
Jesus only promised to protect the Bible, and warned of the church going apostate. Notice in the Old Testament, God protected the Torah, but Israel( a type of Church) went apostate. God rescued a remnant of the Jews, ie the TRUE Assembly. Similarly only a remnant of the visible church( the Assembly) will be saved.
1. Catholics often think the word Tiber refers to the Tiber River in Rome. However the Sea of Galilee is called the Sea of Tiberias. Tiberias was also the official home of Peter and his brother. Since we do not have the original source and there has been significant interpolation, it is highly possible that the original is refering to Tiberias and the forgerer changed it in the Middle Ages to support his Roman agenda.
Tertullian mentions that it does not matter if one baptized in rivers or lakes. He says John baptized in Jordan[a river] and Peter baptizes in Tiber[ probably a reference to a lake.
My Russian Orthodox scholar friend says, ALL the church fathers have been interpolated and it is difficult to determine what is genuine.
Interestingly enough, Jesus only promised to protect His Word. He never promised to protect the church fathers from corruption and forgery. I think God allowed the church fathers to be forged so we would never exalt them above His Word.
2. Robberson: Yes, I may have been harsh with ND, but I think this is EXACTLY how Jesus would deal with someone who is teaching a FALSE gospel. Let me explain what Pastor Stanley would say:
A. What are the consequences of trusting a false teacher?
1. Danger: Since their primary purpose is to control and use people, false teachers don’t seek to lead others into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
2. Division: Such leaders often cause conflict that breaks up families and churches.
3. Disillusionment: They make promises on behalf of God, without telling people how to seek Him. Then, when followers gradually give up on personal time with the Lord, their lives become empty. Only Jesus Christ can fill a person.
4. Drifting: False teachers often cause believers to neglect close fellowship with God. In the absence of a vital, growing relationship with Jesus, Christians stop bearing spiritual fruit. False teaching is also destructive to those who don’t believe. When a cult leaves them feeling empty and defeated, they will think faith has failed them (1 Tim. 4:1).
B. How do we protect ourselves from false teaching?
1. Cling to God’s Word as your faithful guide in life (Titus 1:9). Don't let anything—magazines, television, sports, or even time with your family—come between you and Scripture. If you don’t make time for the Bible, you will gradually lose hope, assurance, and your spiritual foundation.
2. Study the Scriptures under a trustworthy teacher. This person should believe the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. His lifestyle should be consistent with his teaching and the Bible.
3. Refute false doctrine by comparing it to the Word. Scripture is the reliable standard for truth (2 Tim. 3:16).
4. Take precautions to protect yourself from hearing false doctrine. Second John 7-10 instructs us not to greet those who want to deceive us. If you decide to discuss faith with members of a cult, be bold in your proclamation of the truth, and don’t be drawn into fruitless debate.
-- In Summary the Bible is TRUTH, the Church Fathers have been interpolated countless times, so the question is WHO are you going to TRUST. If your pastor, priest, etc. is telling you to trust an interpolated church father more than the Bible than you are listening to a false teacher.
Jesus only promised to protect the Bible, and warned of the church going apostate. Notice in the Old Testament, God protected the Torah, but Israel( a type of Church) went apostate. God rescued a remnant of the Jews, ie the TRUE Assembly. Similarly only a remnant of the visible church( the Assembly) will be saved.
7.30.2009 | 8:07pm
ND says:
George, George, George. . .
You are one of the most delightful Catholic apologists I have ever encountered! Now I see exactly what you are doing -- you are attempting to make the anti-Catholic position look silly.
Your last statement is really a tour de force:
"You might want to consider that Irenaeus also believed that Jesus died of Old Age. If that is not heretical, I don't know what is?"
You must have known that as soon as Catholics looked at Irenaeus' actual writings they would find out that he wrote: "The law and the prophets and evangelists have declared that Christ was born of a virgin, and suffered on the cross; was raised also from the dead, and taken up to heaven; that He was glorified, and reigns for ever." In seeing this, their faith that the Fathers of the Catholic Church were not complete morons would be strengthened.
Who knew that you were secretly working for a jesuit/papist/romish plot to spread faith and good cheer among Catholics everywhere? Well, good job again, George -- you've outdone yourself this time. I guess I'll see you at Mass on Sunday. . .in your disguise, of course!
You are one of the most delightful Catholic apologists I have ever encountered! Now I see exactly what you are doing -- you are attempting to make the anti-Catholic position look silly.
Your last statement is really a tour de force:
"You might want to consider that Irenaeus also believed that Jesus died of Old Age. If that is not heretical, I don't know what is?"
You must have known that as soon as Catholics looked at Irenaeus' actual writings they would find out that he wrote: "The law and the prophets and evangelists have declared that Christ was born of a virgin, and suffered on the cross; was raised also from the dead, and taken up to heaven; that He was glorified, and reigns for ever." In seeing this, their faith that the Fathers of the Catholic Church were not complete morons would be strengthened.
Who knew that you were secretly working for a jesuit/papist/romish plot to spread faith and good cheer among Catholics everywhere? Well, good job again, George -- you've outdone yourself this time. I guess I'll see you at Mass on Sunday. . .in your disguise, of course!
7.30.2009 | 10:33pm
Michael Conway says:
George, I know you claim to be from the AofG church now that you have left atheistic communism, but your attacks on the Catholic Church are strangely the same as those from the Catholic hating Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka. Is there any affiliation here? Isn't it true you subscribe to their beliefs also? This cannot be just a coincedence. Are these thoughts you own or from one of your prestigious AofG preachers? Which AofG "college" did you attend to gain all of this Catholic hating knowledge? Perhaps you learned this from the tongues you interpreted in Sunday meeting or Bible school? Please utter (in any language you choose) to us uneducated Catholics that need to find Jesus in the AofG way so we will not be left behind. Jimmy Swaggart, one of the most prominate AofGers has a "Letter to my Catholic friends". Maybe you could quote from him. Anyone that can sing, play the piano, preach and pick pockets at the same time is a very good source to refute Catholic beliefs. There are so many questions and so little time.
7.30.2009 | 11:40pm
Robberson says:
George, just so you'll recognize me at Mass I'll be wearing jeans and a t-shirt with a Notre Dame logo on the back. You'll have to ask ND what he'll be wearing and let me know :)
Until then-------
Until then-------
7.31.2009 | 8:12am
George Welborn says:
1. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.ii.v.html - 1 Epistle of Clement to Corinthians
"Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labors, and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith”
-Observe that Clement here makes a distinction between Peter and Paul. Both labored and suffered, but Clement tells us only Paul preached in both the “East and the West”; If Peter had come west to Rome, then this distinction could not be used. In addition there is no mention of the Papacy in this Epistle. So it appears Clement is more Evangelical than Catholic.
2. Mike:
Again you begin with ad hominems. I have studied enough Catholic doctrine to see that it is not what Jesus or the Apostles had in mind for a church. Again this boils down to hermeneutics. Arguing over what the original manuscripts of Tertullian, Ignatius, or any church father is fruitless. They ALL have been interpolated ! Talk to any Patristic Scholar. As a 'Denkanstoss', let me provide a set of equations.
Bible + Holy Spirit = Evangelical Christianity
Bible + Church Fathers + Tradition + Papacy = Catholicism
Bible + Church Fathers + Tradition = Orthodox.
Bible + Book of Mormon + Joseph Smith = Mormons
-- The ONLY Things that are from God are the Bible and Holy Spirit, so I place my confidence their. BTW which Tradition is correct the Catholic or Orthodox? Even Orthodox and Catholics don't agree on the list of Church Fathers,Doctors of the Church, Saints, and many other things. Hermeneutics is the ONLY solution to bringing order to the chaos.
3. The Bible says that Pharoah's heart was hardened in his response to the plagues from God. Similarly some of you are hardening your hearts to the simplicity of the Gospel message and trusting in the philosophy and tradition of men. Read the Gospel of John 3 times and let the Holy Spirit speak to your heart, it will change your life.
Regards,
George
"Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labors, and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith”
-Observe that Clement here makes a distinction between Peter and Paul. Both labored and suffered, but Clement tells us only Paul preached in both the “East and the West”; If Peter had come west to Rome, then this distinction could not be used. In addition there is no mention of the Papacy in this Epistle. So it appears Clement is more Evangelical than Catholic.
2. Mike:
Again you begin with ad hominems. I have studied enough Catholic doctrine to see that it is not what Jesus or the Apostles had in mind for a church. Again this boils down to hermeneutics. Arguing over what the original manuscripts of Tertullian, Ignatius, or any church father is fruitless. They ALL have been interpolated ! Talk to any Patristic Scholar. As a 'Denkanstoss', let me provide a set of equations.
Bible + Holy Spirit = Evangelical Christianity
Bible + Church Fathers + Tradition + Papacy = Catholicism
Bible + Church Fathers + Tradition = Orthodox.
Bible + Book of Mormon + Joseph Smith = Mormons
-- The ONLY Things that are from God are the Bible and Holy Spirit, so I place my confidence their. BTW which Tradition is correct the Catholic or Orthodox? Even Orthodox and Catholics don't agree on the list of Church Fathers,Doctors of the Church, Saints, and many other things. Hermeneutics is the ONLY solution to bringing order to the chaos.
3. The Bible says that Pharoah's heart was hardened in his response to the plagues from God. Similarly some of you are hardening your hearts to the simplicity of the Gospel message and trusting in the philosophy and tradition of men. Read the Gospel of John 3 times and let the Holy Spirit speak to your heart, it will change your life.
Regards,
George
7.31.2009 | 9:41am
George Welborn says:
Gentlemen:
Tertullian has been called the first Protestant, as the first Christian writer of impeccable orthodoxy to enunciate the unpalatable truth, that the church was not a conclave of bishops, but the people of the Holy Spirit. -- see Barnes, p84, quoting De pudicitia 21.17.
If one reads the Church fathers one finds that many of them were fighting the same battles that Catholics and Protestants are refighting today. No church father was a perfect Catholic or perfect Protestant. The AG does not ignore the church fathers we just understand that there has been much interpolation, forgery, many lost documents, misunderstanding of their writings, and that one can not cherry pick quotes from them. Again the only thing reliable is the Bible, all else is someone's commentary or opinion.
If there is no evidence for a Papacy, then Vatican I, II, and Trent are all invalid councils and Catholic doctrine must be re-examined by the CHURCH! As John Maxwell says, everything rises and falls on leadership. Similarly, everything in Catholicism rises and falls on the Papacy.
So after you read the Gospel of John a total of three times and then attend an Evangelical church for nine weeks, I think you will have a very different perspective of the Catholic church.
Tertullian has been called the first Protestant, as the first Christian writer of impeccable orthodoxy to enunciate the unpalatable truth, that the church was not a conclave of bishops, but the people of the Holy Spirit. -- see Barnes, p84, quoting De pudicitia 21.17.
If one reads the Church fathers one finds that many of them were fighting the same battles that Catholics and Protestants are refighting today. No church father was a perfect Catholic or perfect Protestant. The AG does not ignore the church fathers we just understand that there has been much interpolation, forgery, many lost documents, misunderstanding of their writings, and that one can not cherry pick quotes from them. Again the only thing reliable is the Bible, all else is someone's commentary or opinion.
If there is no evidence for a Papacy, then Vatican I, II, and Trent are all invalid councils and Catholic doctrine must be re-examined by the CHURCH! As John Maxwell says, everything rises and falls on leadership. Similarly, everything in Catholicism rises and falls on the Papacy.
So after you read the Gospel of John a total of three times and then attend an Evangelical church for nine weeks, I think you will have a very different perspective of the Catholic church.
7.31.2009 | 12:17pm
Michael Conway says:
George,
How can you quote from the writings of the Church fathers and from the wisdom of your Russian Orthodox friends if you have rejected both. You say all church fathers writings have been interpolated and are unreliable and you left the RO church. You renounced your RO church for protestantism. You have decided atheism is not right and you did not find what you wanted in Buddism. Yet, to prove your points, you quote those you do not believe. How does that work?
I have heard of a lot of ways to obtain salvation (ie. the Romans road) but attending a Evangelical church for nine weeks and reading John 3 times has, in my experience, never before been mentioned. Did I miss something in my former and foolish past 30 years while attending all those AG and Baptist meetings? Should I do the "9 and 3 road to enlightenment" along with anything else, or does it really make any difference when you are not on your knees at Mass?
Have a nice day.
How can you quote from the writings of the Church fathers and from the wisdom of your Russian Orthodox friends if you have rejected both. You say all church fathers writings have been interpolated and are unreliable and you left the RO church. You renounced your RO church for protestantism. You have decided atheism is not right and you did not find what you wanted in Buddism. Yet, to prove your points, you quote those you do not believe. How does that work?
I have heard of a lot of ways to obtain salvation (ie. the Romans road) but attending a Evangelical church for nine weeks and reading John 3 times has, in my experience, never before been mentioned. Did I miss something in my former and foolish past 30 years while attending all those AG and Baptist meetings? Should I do the "9 and 3 road to enlightenment" along with anything else, or does it really make any difference when you are not on your knees at Mass?
Have a nice day.
7.31.2009 | 2:17pm
George Welborn says:
Mike,
I am a Mathematical Physicist by academic training. So I like to use a lot of deductive logic (proving by contradiction) and inductive logic. If I find contradictions within and among the church fathers, it immediately reduces their credibility as reliable sources. A Catholic using Tertullian to defend his point is very silly because Tertullian rejected Catholicism and became a Montanist. Intellectually Tertullian was a force to be reckoned with. Furthermore I like to show that Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholics can not agree on what constitutes legitimate doctrinal development. Unapologetically, the RCC likes to paint a rosy picture that the church fathers were in complete agreement and that we have access to the many original manuscripts. Both of these assertions are FALSE!
As a analogy, the United States was a country before the ratification of the US Constitution. All US law is ultimately derivable from the US Constitution. Similarly the Church existed before the Bible, but the Bible is God's Constitution and all laws, practices, doctrine, are derivable from the Bible.
2. The reason I mention the 9, 3 plan is that I think it will work for YOU. I don't think you are ready for the Roman Road to Salvation plan. I know I wasn't and I had it preached to me at least 10 times. The 9,3 plan is what got me born again.
3. My email is nordicbriefcase@hotmail.com. If you need help in finding a good church in your city, I am more than willing to call a few Pastors in that city and see if they preach the word well. I am not beholden to AG churches and would recommend a church that best suits your needs.
I am a Mathematical Physicist by academic training. So I like to use a lot of deductive logic (proving by contradiction) and inductive logic. If I find contradictions within and among the church fathers, it immediately reduces their credibility as reliable sources. A Catholic using Tertullian to defend his point is very silly because Tertullian rejected Catholicism and became a Montanist. Intellectually Tertullian was a force to be reckoned with. Furthermore I like to show that Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholics can not agree on what constitutes legitimate doctrinal development. Unapologetically, the RCC likes to paint a rosy picture that the church fathers were in complete agreement and that we have access to the many original manuscripts. Both of these assertions are FALSE!
As a analogy, the United States was a country before the ratification of the US Constitution. All US law is ultimately derivable from the US Constitution. Similarly the Church existed before the Bible, but the Bible is God's Constitution and all laws, practices, doctrine, are derivable from the Bible.
2. The reason I mention the 9, 3 plan is that I think it will work for YOU. I don't think you are ready for the Roman Road to Salvation plan. I know I wasn't and I had it preached to me at least 10 times. The 9,3 plan is what got me born again.
3. My email is nordicbriefcase@hotmail.com. If you need help in finding a good church in your city, I am more than willing to call a few Pastors in that city and see if they preach the word well. I am not beholden to AG churches and would recommend a church that best suits your needs.
7.31.2009 | 5:22pm
Robberson says:
Hey George, if you take the time and scroll through all the posts there are many questions directed at you specifically. From what I observe you are very agile at what I'll call the "touch and divert" method. You might have some credibility, at least to me, if you "directly and forthrightly" answered the specific questions asked of you. I'm not going to take the time to "pull" the direct questions for you but I'm quite sure you know exactly what I'm talking about. BTW-this type of response to direct questions would not impress a professor in one of your Mathematical Physic courses. They want specific answers to specific questions For example George-If I asked you the question "is this page brown?" you would not say yes or no but would go to great length to describe all the components and light variations that make up the color-to me this is just being evasive or "self-consumed". George, frankly and I hope this is not accurate, your motive is not so much to enlighten others as it is to "show off" without any intent of "listening" or "learning from others.
Sorry man but this is what I see!
Sorry man but this is what I see!
7.31.2009 | 6:19pm
George Welborn says:
Robberson:
I believe that I have answered all the genuine questions asked of me. So please ask me a two specific questions.
I believe that I have answered all the genuine questions asked of me. So please ask me a two specific questions.
7.31.2009 | 10:05pm
Robberson says:
George, a specific question-how do you (George) personally KNOW you are saved? Hopefully, folks who have no education i.e. the majority of humanity will learn something from you that will allow them to see the "light". BTW-I, personally don't KNOW so I'm not trying to put you on the spot so if you don't want to respond I'll understand.
Regards,
Regards,
8.3.2009 | 8:35am
George Welborn says:
Robberson:
Let me answer your question in the following way. Many people confuse the 3 concepts of knowledge, belief, and faith. Knowledge is obtained through the 5 senses and fundamentally has no impact on a persons emotional or spiritual state. Knowledge combined with belief can have a significant impact on an emotional condition. For example: If I told you that your friend was killed in a traffic accident. The knowledge of him being killed is just fact. However the belief that he is DEAD has a significant impact on you emotionally.
So what is Faith? Faith is NOT belief. Faith is best defined as Trust. For example you can have faith in a loving spouse or faith in a trustworthy friend. So faith is trust. Faith is usually built upon knowledge and belief. Therefore when a born again Christian says he has faith in Jesus, he is saying that he has trust in Jesus based on knowledge, belief, and has that his heart and head are in agreement with what Jesus has spoken to them.
So how does one obtain this faith. The Bible says, Faith comes by hearing the Word of God. Therefore the best way to obtain faith is reading the Bible and going to a Bible believing church. From my experience and data collected by Barna it is almost impossible to become a Christian at a church that does not believe the Bible is the 100% verbal plenary word of God( this is an important Theological term). Catholics DO NOT believe in that the Bible is verbal plenary word of God.
So I know that I am saved because, I personally heard God speak to me. My testimony was that God told me the 5 digit mailbox numbers of 4 consecutive students checking their mail at a college postoffice. After this event, God said, go to the second floor of the student center and a man will be reading a Bible and ask him what church he goes to. Go to his church and you will become a Christian. Nine weeks later, I became a born again Christian. God has spoken repeatedly over the years and now I know how to hear His voice. Jesus said, My sheep hear My voice.
I tell people if you can't recognize God's voice than find people who can and go to their church. If you ask a Priest can he hear from God, you will get some deflective answer and some statement about the sacraments. As stated before ALL Pagan religions have Sacraments. Born Again Christians Have no Sacraments only Ordinances.
Let me answer your question in the following way. Many people confuse the 3 concepts of knowledge, belief, and faith. Knowledge is obtained through the 5 senses and fundamentally has no impact on a persons emotional or spiritual state. Knowledge combined with belief can have a significant impact on an emotional condition. For example: If I told you that your friend was killed in a traffic accident. The knowledge of him being killed is just fact. However the belief that he is DEAD has a significant impact on you emotionally.
So what is Faith? Faith is NOT belief. Faith is best defined as Trust. For example you can have faith in a loving spouse or faith in a trustworthy friend. So faith is trust. Faith is usually built upon knowledge and belief. Therefore when a born again Christian says he has faith in Jesus, he is saying that he has trust in Jesus based on knowledge, belief, and has that his heart and head are in agreement with what Jesus has spoken to them.
So how does one obtain this faith. The Bible says, Faith comes by hearing the Word of God. Therefore the best way to obtain faith is reading the Bible and going to a Bible believing church. From my experience and data collected by Barna it is almost impossible to become a Christian at a church that does not believe the Bible is the 100% verbal plenary word of God( this is an important Theological term). Catholics DO NOT believe in that the Bible is verbal plenary word of God.
So I know that I am saved because, I personally heard God speak to me. My testimony was that God told me the 5 digit mailbox numbers of 4 consecutive students checking their mail at a college postoffice. After this event, God said, go to the second floor of the student center and a man will be reading a Bible and ask him what church he goes to. Go to his church and you will become a Christian. Nine weeks later, I became a born again Christian. God has spoken repeatedly over the years and now I know how to hear His voice. Jesus said, My sheep hear My voice.
I tell people if you can't recognize God's voice than find people who can and go to their church. If you ask a Priest can he hear from God, you will get some deflective answer and some statement about the sacraments. As stated before ALL Pagan religions have Sacraments. Born Again Christians Have no Sacraments only Ordinances.
This is not to suggest that Calvin's Catholic opponents teach (or taught) that one is made righteous by works, only to point out that there is early extra-Scriptural precedent for evangelicalism's chosen emphasis.