Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
The Forum - Debate Religion
>
Question for Protestants in this group
before I resond to this random blog... I want to ask you a hypothetical question. Is it possible for the Roman Cathlic Church to commit apostasy, Even though the councils which were held under Roman Catholic supervision were the means by which the NT Canon was assembled?
Luke wrote: "before I resond to this random blog... I want to ask you a hypothetical question. Is it possible for the Roman Cathlic Church to commit apostasy, Even though the councils which were held under Roma..."Can you give me your definition of apostacy?
Luke wrote: "before I resond to this random blog... I want to ask you a hypothetical question. Is it possible for the Roman Cathlic Church to commit apostasy, Even though the councils which were held under Roma..."And random blog??? The link I posted is dirrectly related to our debate here.
What I meant by "random blog" was that its not your response, but some random URL that you copy and pasted. So instead of doing the work of an apologist and building an argumentative response to my post. You direct me to a random catholic website.... Its a ridiculous tactic. But dont worry I intend to respond with quite a lengthy historical survey of the origin of the papacy. So dont think that my question is some kind of a side-step. Im just curious how steeped in the lie of Roman Catholicism you really are. P.S.
The Merriam-Websters definition of Apostasy is "the abandonment of a former loyalty." So what I am asking is do you think that it is possible for the Roman Catholic Church to abandon their allegiance to the true faith of the Prophets, Apostles and Jesus Christ? Even though the councils held under their supervision may have been a means to the assembly of the NT canon????
Clear enough yet?
in a very quick response to your earlier rebuttal.The scriptures teach that the Gospel is the power of God unto Salvation for all who believe (Rom 1:16). They also teach that the Gospel consists of the person and work of Jesus Christ ( see 1 Cor 15:1-4). these things are declared in their entirety in the New Testament and need not be added to nor taken away (see Rev 22:18-19). In addition the scriptures teach that the scriptures are the foundation of the Church (see Eph 2:20) and that Christ is the head, not the Pope.
Peter himself proclaims the sufficiency of God's word over his own experience on the mountain. He says that the prophetic word is more sure than his own tesimony, (2 Peter 1:17-19). I do not believe that the OT prophecies were supreme over Peter's testimony nor vise a versa (since both are found in Scripture). But I do believe that this passage reveals Peter's high view of the written word and how nothing he seen or experienced would have been verifiable had it jot been for the authority of the scriptures backing it up. By the way, Peter also seen himself on equal standing with all others in the Church, even though the Roman Catholic Church would say that he was greater .... Paul seconds this notion by referring to Peter's ministry to Jews as no greater than his own to the Gentiles, he then refers to James, Cephas and John as pillars... showing no distinctions between the three. and then concludes the chapter by rebuking Peter (your supposive Christ on earth) for hypocrisy. What was the sin that Peter commited? according to Paul he was "not in step with the Gospel." (see Gal 2). Therefore "the Gospel of Jesus Christ which was promised through the Prophets in the holy scriptures" was the authority which Paul used to rebuke Peter and thus establish how the authority of God's word is the only trustworthy guide of the true church.
it was not scripture and the pope, it was scripture over the pope. - kapeesh?
sorry I forgot for scripture references. I'm at work on my phone... so this is a kind of haphaz response.... ( please look at 2 Peter 1:1 and Rom 1:1-2.)p.s. if the Roman Catholic church exhorts people to read the divine scriptures. why did they burn William Tyndale at the stake in 1536 for translating the New Testament into English... seems a little counter productive don't ya think?
Luke wrote: "do you think that it is possible for the Roman Catholic Church to abandon their allegiance to the true faith of the Prophets, Apostles and Jesus Christ? "Every individaul Catholic is capable of commiting the sin of apostacy. However, the Church, when proclaiming infallible doctrine, can not teach falsity. There are three requirements for infallibility to be invoked:
1. The pronouncement must be made by the official successor to Peter.
2. The subject matter must be in the area of faith and morals.
3. The Pope must be speaking ex cathedra (from the chair) of Peter, and must be intending to proclaim a doctine that binds the entire Church to assent.
If any one of the above 3 requirements is missing, the papal declaration is not considered to be an infallible doctrine. Not everything the Pope says is infallible.
"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18
Luke wrote: "What I meant by "random blog" was that its not your response, but some random URL that you copy and pasted. So instead of doing the work of an apologist and building an argumentative response to my post. You direct me to a random catholic website.... Its a ridiculous tactic. "A good apologetist uses all the resources they have availible, including websites. The link I posted is not random. It is a dirrect rebuttal to you claim that "The point I am trying to make is that the Cannon of Scripture was not given by the authority of the Papacy, but through general consensus of the church bishops." and your evidence for that claim, "To establish this argument I would direct your attention to Canon 6 of the Nicene Creed". I think it is ridiculous to make fun of other people's tactic's, because it gets you no father in a debate.
if the Roman Catholic church exhorts people to read the divine scriptures. why did they burn William Tyndale at the stake in 1536 for translating the New Testament into English... seems a little counter productive don't ya think? I am not sure if bringing in events from 500 years ago proves much. Should Anabaptists be worried about Reformed Calvinists and Lutherans wanting to drown them for false beliefs? Should skeptics like Servetus be worried that they may be burned at the stake?
At any rate, here are two points I think are important:
1. Bryn - as a Catholic, you do have to work hard to balance the fact that councils and popes have contradicted each other. How does that play into papal authority?
2. - We non-Catholics owe it to you to understand where contemporary Catholic doctrine comes from. I think we can critique you on the contradictions in ccouncils. But I think holding up doctrines or teachings that are not central to Catholicism today is not really fair. It makes me wonder if we are getting our information from anti-Catholic authors who agree with us or if we are taking the time to read what the Catholic authors are saying. Perhaps we should familiarize ourselves with Vatican II and the Catechism.
So.... Are you suggesting that The Person and Work of Jesus Christ alone is not sufficient for salvation? But that they must also ascribe to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in order to obtain true Christian Faith?
David wrote: "if the Roman Catholic church exhorts people to read the divine scriptures. why did they burn William Tyndale at the stake in 1536 for translating the New Testament into English... seems a little co..."Its called a contradiction David.... If Bryn says "the Roman Catholic Church exhorts all the faithful to read the scriptures." And yet I can point to historical events that fly in the face of her statement... It proves that the Roman Catholic Church have often contradited themselves and thus shown how their declarations "in matters of faith and morals" are inadequate.
P.S. And seeing how we are discussing the "Protestant" perspective of the history and authority of the Roman Catholic Church. Referring to one of the original protestant Reformers is extremely relevant to the subject.
"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."-- Mark Twain
Dear David, before you accuse me of making over statements. Heres a quick survery of those who were persecuted and martyred for either teaching, possessing or distributing the Bible, under Roman Catholic authority.1415 - John Huss - Burned for preaching the Gospel and rejecting Rome’s views.
1416 - 300 burned at the stake in Saxony for following John Huss.
1417 - Sir John Oldcastle - Helped distribute Wycliffe Bible - Martyred for his faith by being roasted over fire.
1427 - John Purvey - Bible distribution - died in prison - 1421-7.
1481/2 - 2,000 people burned alive in Spanish Inquisition in Seville and Castile (If You dont know what that is, look it up.)
1488 - 3,000 Waldensian believers murdered in a cave called Aigue-Froid.
1506 - William Tylsworth - Burned for his faith in the Word of God.
1511 - James Brewster - Burned at the stake - Having a book of Scripture.
1519 - Six men and women burned for teaching their children the Lord’s prayer - London.
1525 - Gospel preacher named Schuch - Burned at the stake in Strasburg for preaching and having a Bible - His Bible was burned with him.
1528 - Patrick Hamilton - Burned at the Stake in Scotland for declaring that it is the right of any person to read God’s Word.
1529 - Louis Berquin - Burned at the Stake in France for printing and distributing Bible tracts in French.
1530 - John Tewksbury - Burned at the stake for Bible distribution - England.
1531 - Thomas Bilney - Martyred for preaching and distributing the Tyndale Bible.
1531 - Richard Bayfield - Burned at the stake for Scripture distribution.
1532 - James Bainham - Burned for possessing Scriptures in the English language.
1533 - Henry Forrest - Benedictine Monk who became saved - Burned at the stake in St. Andrews, Scotland for preaching the gospel.
1533 - John Fryth - Burned for preaching the true Gospel - England.
1535 - Dean Forret - Burned for having Scripture in the English tongue - Scotland.
1536 - William Tyndale - Burned at the Stake for Translating the Bible into English - His translation became the groundwork for the King James Version.
1536 - Ann Boleyn - Wife of Henry the VIII - Beheaded for teaching her children the true faith.
1540 - Thomas Garrett - Friend of Tyndale - Burned at the stake - England.
1545 - Massacre of Merindol and Cabrieres, France - Thousands of Waldensians murdered (Look It Up!).
1546 - Peter Chapot burned to death in Meaux, France for bringing French bibles to France.
1546 - Stephen Polliot - Burned at the Stake for bringing Scriptures into France - His tongue was cut out so he could not witness to those around him at his execution.
1546 - Ann Askew - Tortured and burnt for studying and believing the true Scriptures.
1548 - Paul Fagius - Burned for translating the Bible - England.
1548 - Martin Bucer - Burned for translating the Bible - England.
1553 - Nicholas Nayle - Burned at the stake in Paris because he brought gospel books for believers.
And the list goes on and on and on. The execution of William Tyndale is not an isolated event, but a drop in the bucket. The Roman Catholic Church has more blood of godly men and women on her hands than Nero.
But despite the tyrannical tactics and threats of Rome the truth of God's word has triumphed.
Glory be to God!
Luke, I think you missed my point. I am not a Catholic. I agree that there is contradiction between the councils and popes (and I love the quote from Luther). My point is that the Catholic church has changed. If you want to know what the Catholic church believes, read Vatican II and the Catechism. Of course, that is a precisely the question Bryn has to answer - why trust a church that has changed so much to be infallible? I think she has answered it to some degree, of course we non-Catholics are not going to buy it :) But to simply say "in the 1500s Catholics killed people who distributed scripture" does not prove that today Catholics do not want people to read scripture. They have English translations, mass is in the vernacular.
Besides which, in the 1500s the Reformed church killed lots of Anabaptists. Should my Mennonite friends be scared?
As previously promised, I will now attempt to survey the history of the early church with special attention to two issues: 1) The historical origin of the Roman Catholic Papacy. 2) The Historical Authenticity of Documents by which Rome's Monarchy was established. (This is where I will address both the Ireneaus quote above and the "random blog").By way of introduction I would like to note a few things. These two issues will obviously overlap at times but I will attempt to be clear and honest to the historical data. Also, in a task as grand as this one, I am assuming that the readers of this article have more than a basic knowledge of church history. Therefore due to lack of space and time I will not thoroughly define all historical events or terminology with the same ammount of detail. In other words, at some points we will be flying over head at 20,000 ft, and at other points we will be at ground level. Last but not least, it is worth noting that the two main sources I have resorted to in this endeavour are as theologically neutral as I could possibly find. The first is "A History of Christianity" by Paul Johnson who is a historian's historian, He has written major historical works on everything from the Holocaust to the Country of Ireland, He is also extremely academic with a double PHD, in History and Literature, from Oxford. (For more information on Johnson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Joh...)
My second main source of historical data is "The Story of Christianity" by Justo Gonzalez who is a top notch Church Historian who attended United Seminary in Cuba, recieved his M.A. at Yale and was the youngest person ever to be awarded a Ph.D. in historical theology at Yale. He is also associated with the Methodist Church, in other words he is not "reformed" per se, and is seemingly free from any historical bias.
With that being said, lets begin reflecting on the history of the church, not from a catholic or protestant perspective. But through a historical lens.
When Christianity first came on the scene it was observed as "a new Jewish Sect" because all of its original proponents were of Jewish ethnicity and Jerusalem served as the starting point of the movement (Act 2). As it began to invade the culteral-centers of the Roman-Greco world, Antioch (Acts 13), Athens (Acts 17), Corinth (Acts 18) Ephesus (Acts 19) and eventually Rome (Acts 28), people begin to differentiate between Christians and Jews. One of the most distinguishing differences was that Christians did not put religious emphasis on the practice of circumcision. This fact caused much tension and division in the early church and eventually led to the first Church council, which is recorded in Acts 15. During this council, James the brother of Jesus Christ (see Gal 1:19) and an elder of the Church in Jerusalem, publicly declared that Jews and Gentiles were equal in salvation and that no circumcision was necessary for them to partake in the blessings of Christ. And with this statement the apostles and elders and the whole Church agreed. Quick parenthesis: This passage shows at least two things about the nature of the church in the NT, particularly in how it came to seek unity when making corporate decisions. 1) The idea of a Church council is not the product of Roman Catholicism but a practice clearly established in Jerusalem during the apostolic age. 2) The Scriptures played a vital and authoritative role in the early Church's decision making. James recites the Prophet Amos in verses 16-17 and based on the truth of Scripture they came to an eccliesiastical conclusion.
Moving along, as the early Christian church expanded, the local church corresponded through letters. Much of the discussion was questions about didactic/doctrinal matters and/or practical christian living. As a resolution to these questions the Apostles, and church elders (such as James and Jude) wrote letters, tackling the hot topics of their day and establishing the church in sound doctrine. The earliest NT writings we have are in the form of these letters. These caused churches to be more solidified in their understanding of the nitty-gritty of Christian doctrine and life. Then the Gospels began to emerge (the first being Mark, Scholars believe that Matthew and Luke used Mark's Gospel as an outline.) And lastly John who was the last to expire into glory wrote his epistles, his Gospel and Revelation all from the island of Patmos where he had been exiled under the persecution of Emperor Domitian.
The Apostles were ferocious in their evangelism and were keen on entrusting their teachings to faithful men who would be able to teach others (see 2 Tim 2:1-2). These faithful men were referred to as elders (Gk: presbyteros) or pastors (Gk: poimen) or bishops (Gk: episkipos). In reality, these titles are used interchangebly throughout the NT, and also the pattern in all the NT churches was to have a plurality of elders overseeing the church, not just one; (For further study on this issue, see Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology Ch 47). This understanding of church leadership and plurality of Elders cuts the legs out from under the Roman Catholic belief of Church Monoarchy. The idea of Peter's position as Pope (Bishop of Rome) presumes that each church practiced church government through a singular elder, a practice not seen in the NT. Thus in reality the belief that the Papist position was passed down through a line of succession is foreign to the church of the NT.
So as we come into the post Apostolic era of the Christian church what we see is many of the disciples and students of the Apostles taking this thing called Christianity and running with it. Paul in exhorting Timothy, explains how this next generation of believers would suceed in fulfilling the commission that the Apostles had started. Paul tells him to continue in what he had learned and believed, namely the sacred scriptures, which was able to make one wise and equip a person for all the ins and outs of minstry (see 2 Tim 3:14-17).
The most well known of this next generation of believers were men such as Barnabas of Cyprus, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp of Smyrna. This era is commonly referred to as the age of the Apostolic Fathers (100-150 AD). These men were personally aquainted with the Apostles and had sat under their teaching and mentorship before they died. Therefore they had an authoritative point of reference for how to lead their churches and fulfill their ministries. All of the early fathers named above wrote letters exhorting the churches and reaffirming the doctrine of their Apostolic mentors. Despite the extreme persecution the church underwent during these first two centuries the church grew strong in numbers and continued to flourish throughout all of the Roman empire. During this time, several heretical groups began to surface, the most noteworthy being the Gnostics. But the early Fathers battled gnosticism by affirming and reaffirming the teachings of the Apostles and the Prophets in their churches. During this time, the letters and gospel accounts written by the Apostles were being reproduced and distributed throughout all the empire, and churches were being steeped in genuine apostolic doctrine in order to safe guard them from the heretical movements that were at hand, mainly the Gnostics. So if you read Clement's letter to the Corinthians you will see him contending for the faith of the apostles and using the same line of thought and reasoning as Paul, his mentor. Likewise with many of the other early father writings. They are a carbon copy of the apostolic epistles.
A new era began, known as the age of Apologists (150-250 AD). As the church began to grow, christians began to leave a noticible mark on their respective cultures. Not only was the fruit of Christ-like compassion and sacrificial love attracting the common people in the market, but also the intellectual depth of Christian doctrine (which was now widely understood to be the fulfillment of Judiasm), was beginning to strike up conversation among the elite thinkers of the 2nd century. All of this set the stage for men such as Justin Martyr, Tatian the Assyrian, Irenaeus of Lyons, Aristedes of Athens and others. These men brought an arsenal of literary and linguistic skills as well as philisophical intuitiveness, which proved to be the adequate resume to introduce Christianity to the masses of the Greek speaking world. These were the men who defended the faith from 2nd century Platonic philosophy and Gnostocism. In fact the text recited above from Irenaeus was taken (Maybe) from his book written against the many heretical movements which were attacking Christianity in his day. One interesting part of Irenaeus' writings is where he addresses the modernly popularized "Gospel of Judas." Irenaeus states "They declare that Judas the traitor was thoroughly acquainted with these things, and that he alone, knowing the truth as no other did, accomplished the mystery of betrayal; by him all things were thus thrown into confusion. They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas" (Against Heresies 1.31.1).
Now in regards to the Irenaeus quote from Bryn, I do not find it suprisng that she quoted this text (slim pickins), but I do find it interesting how she failed to mention the historical controversy surrounding it. For one, it is the only passage before Nicea in which "primacy" lanuage is used. No where in Ignatius, Clement, Barnabas, Justin Martyr nor anywhere else in Irenaeus do you find such referrals. So for nearly three hundred years of church history all the church had to go on was this paragraph (and Matthew 16:18 of course).
Also, there is problems with this text in light of what Holy Scipture says. The Irenaeus passage states that Peter and Paul founded the Church in Rome and entrusted the episcopate to Linus, and that after him came two bishops named Anacletus before Clement (see Against Heresies 3.3.3., MPG 7.848; tr. Ayer, Source Book, pg. 113). Im going to momentarily disregard the Roman Catholic track record in document forgery (we'll get there eventually), and consider this claim from a strictly biblical standpoint. Irenaeus claims that both Paul and Peter founded (started) the church in Rome. And yet, Paul in his letter to the Church in Rome (which he supossively founded) clearly reflects on the fact that he has never been there or met them (Rom 1:13). Well, one might say, Maybe Peter beat him to the punch and got there before him. Yea, not likely seeing how in Paul's sign off chapter he never mentions one of the most influencial church leaders of all time. I doubt it.
In addition, many Catholic scholars have even acknowledged that the Christian community in Rome did not come under a single church leader until sometime in the late 2nd century (see John W. O'Malley, A History of the Popes ,Rowland & Littlefield 2009, pg 11). In other words, it was at least a century after the Apostles died that the elders in Rome began to break away from biblical Church government (plurality of elders) and started more of a monarchy-style ecclesiastical order.
Now let me end this first article with some clarification. I do believe that both Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome. I do not believe that Peter or Paul were bishops of Rome. I do believe that the Church in Rome had a great influence on the other churches in the west, mainly because of its location. Rome was seen as the center of the world based on the fact that the Roman Empire was spread from northern Europe to the middle East to northern Africa. Paul Johnson writes "the Church in Rome profited from its associations as the capital of the empire" (Pg 61). But regardless of these things I do not believe that it was seen at that time as the "Primace" of the universal church.
Next up, The Age of Constantine and the Ecumenical Councils.
Hang in there!
David wrote: "Luke, I think you missed my point. I am not a Catholic. I agree that there is contradiction between the councils and popes (and I love the quote from Luther). My point is that the Catholic churc..."There is also a huge difference in that Protestants do no point to the Reformation or John Calvin as the source of hope and truth, we point to the scriptures.... I am fully aware of the errors of historical protestantism and that much wrong was done during the Reformational era. But were not calling people to follow john calvin, or to declare that the hope is found in the protestant Church, but rather it is found in the person and work of Christ. But on the other hand, the Catholic Church points to the church as a source of authoritative truth and therefore a source of hope for people, despite the contradictions and calamities that have resulted from their institution.
If you point to flaws in the protestant Church it doesn't effect our faith because we are looking to Jesus. But if you point to contradictions in the Catholic Church, they either back-peddle to some old tradition or new church statement. They are like the Mormon church, every few years they have to fine tune something in their confessions because they realize how jacked up it is. The Catholic church is no different, whenever something faulty comes to light, they issue a new statement, or suggest that the last statement wasnt legit because the Pope wasnt speaking from "the chair"..... its ridiculous.
Luke wrote: "Its called a contradiction David.... If Bryn says "the Roman Catholic Church exhorts all the faithful to read the scriptures." And yet I can point to historical events that fly in the face of her statement... It proves that the Roman Catholic Church have often contradited themselves and thus shown how their declarations "in matters of faith and morals" are inadequate. "
Posts 7-11 in this thread on William Tydale explains why he was killed, and why burning him was not a contridiction.
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...
so I asked you a question. Do you believe that the person and work of Jesus Christ is not sufficient for ones' Salvation ?
Luke wrote: "so I asked you a question. Do you believe that the person and work of Jesus Christ is not sufficient for ones' Salvation ?"I believe Jesus opened the gates of Heaven, making it possible for humankind to get there when He died on the cross. I believe that to be saved you must be baptized, either by water, blood (martydom), or desire(wanting to be baptized in water or blood, but dying unable to have attained it), and you must die without a mortal sin on your soul.
I do not believe that the Bible alone contains all the truths God has revealed to us. I do not believe belief in God or accpeting that Jesus is our savior is enough to save you.
God has told us how to save ourselves (Get baptized, follow the commandments, love our neighbor as oursleves, and look toward the Pilar and Foundation of Truth, the Church for guidence when in doubt as to what the scriptures mean, and whether certain actions are moral. If we love God, then we will do as He has commanded us.
Luke wrote: "The Roman Catholic Church has more blood of godly men and women on her hands than Nero."
Excuse me! You talk as though Protestants haven't killed any Catholics!
Here are just a few names of those killed by Protestants. http://www.skeptictank.org/files/xhat...
Luke wrote: "But on the other hand, the Catholic Church points to the church as a source of authoritative truth and therefore a source of hope for people, despite the contradictions and calamities that have resulted from their institution. "
The Catholic Church does no such thing. The Catholic Church follows God. She obeys God's word, whether in letter (Bible) or word (orral tradition).(2 Thesselonians 2:15). She is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, (1 Timothy, 3:15) not because she is great on her own, but because she is guided by God, established by God, willed by God, and protected by God. The gates of Hell will not prevail against her. (Matthew 16:18)
David wrote: "Of course, that is a precisely the question Bryn has to answer - why trust a church that has changed so much to be infallible? "My answer is that the church has never changed her position on anything infallible. There is no reason why she should not change/clarify practices/teachings, etc. that were not infallible.
Likewise, Protestestants must answer to how the Spirit of Truth is in every denomination of Bible beleivers, when the denomination's teachings are contridictory.
you might wanna read those passages again. I don't see the Church in Rome mentioned at all. also 1 TIM 3:14-15 says "I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that if I delay you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the Truth." First Timothy's church was in Ephesus ( see 1:3) not Rome. secondly, Paul clearly shows that the Scriptures (his writings) are authoritative in teaching the church how to conduct herself. Do you read the bible for yourself? if so how do you interpret this passage "look to Jesus the founder and perfecter of our faith" (Hebrews 12:2)???
or this one "God has granted to us everything that pertains to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his great and precious promises so that THROUGH THEM we might become partakers of the divine nature" ( 2 Pet 1:3-4).
and as far as Protestants killing Catholics ,I am not in favor of everything Protestants have done. But I do believe that the Reformation served the church by rediscovering and reestablishing true biblical doctrine. and again, we do no point to the church as a source of hope and salvation, unlike Roman Catholics. Instead we point to the Historic Jesus who died and rose again, not to simply make salvation possible but to actually save his people (see Matt 1:21).
question, were all the popes aware of their authority. or did some of them not get the memo?
David wrote: "1. Bryn - as a Catholic, you do have to work hard to balance the fact that councils and popes have contradicted each other. How does that play into papal authority?"
When have the councils and Popes contradicted each other?
Luke wrote: “you might wanna read those passages again.”Those passages say that the Bible is the word of God, and are authoritative in teaching. That is nothing the Catholic Church denies. Catholics have the highest respect for scripture-don’t forget that if Catholic monks didn’t copy down the Bible generation after generation, you Protestants wouldn’t even have the Bible. However, it is the UNBIBLICAL CLAIM that the Bible is the ONLY source of God’s word, that Catholics disagree with. John tells us that “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.” (John 21:25). The Church believes that we should believe and follow everything Jesus taught, whether it is passed down to us as the Bible, or as oral teaching that was eventually written down latter. “Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
Luke wrote: “. I don't see the Church in Rome mentioned at all”
You don’t have to look far to read about when Jesus established the papacy. “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” (Matthew 16:18-19. This article goes into more detail: http://www.catholicthinker.net/peter-... )
Luke wrote: “First Timothy's church was in Ephesus ( see 1:3) not Rome.”
I use the Douay-Rheims Bible, because it is the most accurate translation available, and my Timothy 3:15 is slightly different. “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” Timothy wasn’t telling people about a building in Rome, or one in Ephesus, because no building is the pillar and ground of truth. He was talking about the Catholic Church. No, he doesn’t mention the ‘Church in Rome’. The papacy/church is not dependent on Rome. Rome just happens to be the home of the Pope. In fact, not all the Popes lived in Rome. As for the rest of the Church (Bishops, priests, deacons, etc.) “Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” (Matthew 28:19) clearly tells us Jesus intended the Church to be passed on to new disciples.
Luke wrote: “Do you read the bible for yourself? if so how do you interpret this passage "look to Jesus the founder and perfecter of our faith" (Hebrews 12:2)???”
Yes, of course I read the Bible!
Hebrews 12:2 “Looking on Jesus, the author and finisher of faith, who having joy set before him, endured the cross, despising the shame, and now sitteth on the right hand of the throne of God.”
Nothing in Catholicism is contradictory to this passage. Jesus IS the author and finisher (and perfecter) of faith. He established the Church, He opened the gates of Heaven, He wrote the rules Catholics follow. Jesus is also the finisher, the judge after death, and the judge at the end of the world.
Luke wrote: “or this one "God has granted to us everything that pertains to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his great and precious promises so that THROUGH THEM we might become partakers of the divine nature" ( 2 Pet 1:3-4).”
My translation reads: “As all things of his divine power which appertain to life and godliness, are given us, through the knowledge of him who hath called us by his own proper glory and virtue. By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature: flying the corruption of that concupiscence which is in the world.”
This means simply that all our knowledge about divine power which pertains to life and godliness , is given to us by God. It means that Jesus gave us great and precious promises so we could get to Heaven.
Luke wrote: “and as far as Protestants killing Catholics ,I am not in favor of everything Protestants have done.”
Not everything? Are you saying you approve of some of the times Protestants killed Catholics?
Luke wrote: “we do no point to the church as a source of hope and salvation, unlike Roman Catholics. Instead we point to the Historic Jesus who died and rose again, not to simply make salvation possible but to actually save his people (see Matt 1:21).”
Matthew 1:21 says “For he shall save his people from their sins.” When Jesus died on the cross, that is exactly what He did. Jesus saved us by opening the gates of Heaven.
Luke wrote: “question, were all the popes aware of their authority. or did some of them not get the memo?”
I’m afraid I don’t know for sure, but I would guess that they did all know. Ask a priest.
Luke, just so you know, I'm in the process of writing responses to your two large posts. I'm not ignoring them, they are simlpy time consuming to reply to.
(That no bishop should presume in anything pertaining to another’s parish, and of the transference of bishops.)Let no one, again, trespass upon the boundaries of another, nor presume to judge or excommunicate one belonging to another’s parish; because such judgment or ordination, or excommunication or condemnation, shall neither be ratified nor have any virtue; since no one shall be bound by the decision of another judge than his own, neither shall he be condemned by such. Whence also the Lord speaks to this effect: “Pass not the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set.” [1] Moreover, let no primate or metropolitan invade the church or parish of a diocesan (diœcesani), or presume to excommunicate or judge any one belonging to his parish, or do anything without his counsel or judgment; but let him observe this law, which has been laid down by the apostles [2] and fathers, and our predecessors, and has been ratified by us: to wit, that if any metropolitan bishop, except in that which pertains to his own proper parish alone, shall attempt to do anything without the counsel and good-will of all the comprovincial bishops, he will do it at the risk of his position, and what he does in this manner shall be held null and void; but whatever it may be necessary to do or to arrange with regard to the cases of the body of provincial bishops, and the necessities of their churches and clergy and laity, this should be done by consent of all the pontiffs of the same province, and that too without any pride of lordship, but with the most humble and harmonious action, even as the Lord says: “I came not to be ministered unto, but to minister.” [3] And in another passage He says: “And whosoever of you is the greater, shall be your servant,” [4]
and so forth. And in like manner the bishops of the same province themselves should do all things in counsel with him, except so much as pertains to their own proper parishes, in accordance with the statutes of the holy fathers (who, although they have preceded us by a certain interval of time, have yet drawn the light of truth and faith from one and the same fountain of purity, and have sought the prosperity of the Church of God and the common advantage of all Christians by the same enlightening and guiding Spirit), that with one mind, and one mouth, and one accord, the Holy Trinity may be glorified for ever. No primate, no metropolitan, nor any of the other bishops, is at liberty to enter the seat of another, or to occupy a possession which does not pertain to him, and which forms part of the parish of another bishop, at the direction of any one, unless he is invited by him to whose jurisdiction it is acknowledged to belong; nor can he set about any arrangement or ordinance, or judgment there, if he wishes to keep the honour of his station. But if he presume to do otherwise, he shall be condemned; and not only he, but those who co-operate and agree with him: for just as the power of making appointments (ordinatio) is interdicted in such circumstances, so also is the power of judging or of disposing of other matters. For if a man has no power to appoint, how shall he judge? Without doubt, he shall in no wise judge or have power to judge: for just as another man’s wife cannot intermarry with anyone (adulterari), nor be judged or disposed of by any one but by her own husband so long as he liveth; so neither can it in anywise be allowed that the wife of a bishop, by whom undoubtedly is meant his church or parish, should be judged or disposed of by another without his (the bishop’s) judgment and good-will so long as he liveth, or enjoy another’s embrace, that is, his ordaining. Wherefore the apostle says: “The wife is bound by the law so long as her husband liveth; but if he be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.” [5] In like manner also, the spouse of a bishop (for the church is called his spouse and wife) is bound to him while he liveth; but when he is dead she is loosed, and may be wedded to whomsoever she will, only in the Lord, that is, according to order. For if, while he is alive, she marry another, she shall be judged to be an adulteress. And in the same manner, he too, if he marry another of his own will, shall be held to be an adulterer, and shall be deprived of the privilege of communion. If, however, he is persecuted in his own church, he must flee to another, and attach himself to it, as the Lord says: “If they persecute you in one city, flee ye into another.” [6] If, however, the change be made for the sake of the good of the church, he may not do this of himself, but only on the invitation of the brethren, and with the sanction of this holy seat, and not for ambition’s sake, but for the public good"
this is written by Callistus, bishop of Rome from 217 - 223. it from the looks of things he never got the memo because he clearly contradicts the doctrine of the primacy of Rome.
See http://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-...
nowhere does he say that the Roman bishop has authority over other jurisdictions, but that each bishop is to exercise authority over their own church..... your on the ropes Bryn.
Btw, Irenaeus believed that the scriptures were the foundation and pillar of the Faith. " WE have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith." (against heresies 3.1.1.) Sounds like an early church argument for Sola Scriptura.
see. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/...
in all my studies, the first Pope to claim the authority of primacy was based on the Petrine succession was Gelasius II, Pope from 492 to 496, claimed that the "see of blessed Peter has the right to loose what has been bound by any other bishop whatsoever." ( see Paul Johnson, History of Christianity, pg 167.) in other words this interpretation of Matt 16:18 did not developed until the late 5th century. And was more thoroughly established by the gifted leadership of Leo I. Due to the circumstances pending, namely the fall of the Roman empire in the 6th century, the jurisdiction of the empire was handed over to him in an attempt to save the city from Attila the Hun and the other vandels of that era. but in regards to the early church fathers and writers there is no clear statements about the primacy of the Roman bishop due to Petrine succession.
p.s. I'm gonna be some traveling in the next week or so and will not be able to correspond via this blog. So this is my farewell for now. And also Bryn, I am sorry if I have been rude or condescending in this dialogue. My real hatred towards catholicism is that it destroys the doctrine of Justification by Faith which I believe is the crowning jewel of MY doctrine. Nevertheless, I am not your enemy and do not desire to offend you of hurt your feelings, my intentions are to defend and uphold the Gospel of the Apostles, yet vigor and passion can often for the truth can often lack love humility and for that I apologize and ask for your forgiveness for any offense that I have given.
Sincerely.
God Bless.
Before I sign off for a bit I think its only fair to address Bryn's "rebuttal" that was given in the form of a copied and pasted URL directing me to a catholic website, specifically to a quotation from the "Decree of Pope Damasus" awhile ago in response to my citing of Canon 6 of the Nicene Council. I think it is quite interesting that you would resort to this decree of "Pope" Damasus I (r. 366-384). The document was a decree of the Council of Rome which met under Damasus' presidency in AD 382. The text of the Decree was copied from Volume 1 of THE FAITH OF THE EARLY FATHERS, edited/translated by William A. Jurgens (Collegevlle, The Liturgical Press: 1970).Genuinely alert readers should note that Jurgens is somewhat famous for passing along forged and fake documents like this one as if they were real. The document he cited, as from "Pope Damasus," is also known as the Decree of Gelasius, but it's not written by him, either, but was probably composed by an anonymous source in the sixth century.
In truth, "the Roman Catholic Faith" was shaped by very many incidents such as this, in which a false or forged document is believed as genuine. Do a little hoistorical study on "Pseudo-Dionysius," a neoplatonist writer who purported to be the convert of Paul from Acts 17. Nevertheless, the great Thomas Aquinas thought that he, and other fake sources, was genuine, and Aquinas has a somewhat foundational place in Roman Catholic theology and doctrine today. Much of what is now Catholic dogma also had its roots in forged or spurious documents. I will adress the history of forged documents in the Roman Catholic church in far greater detail when I return from my trip. but for now it is interesting to note that even the Catholic Encyclopaedia, Vol. VI, pg. 136, gives a pretty frank admission of this historical fact "Substituting of false documents and tampering with genuine ones was quite a trade in the Middle Ages." and also ""One is forced to admit that the gradual corruption of Christianity began very early" (Catholic Encyclopaedia, Vol. XII, pg. 414.) There you have it folks, right from the horses mouth.
So, its fairly obvious that this is not a straw man argument. Even the proponents of Roman Catholicism are well of aware of the presence of forgery and corruption in the early Roman church and some of the earliest documents.
For example, one of Rome's most bogus claims has been that of apostolic succession. Yet amazingly the Catholic church (much later on) was forced to own up and say the following about the Apostolic Canons, which allegedly deal with how the Apostles dictated material to St. Clement of Rome:
"A tradition long prevailed that these canons were dictated by the Apostles to St. Clement of Rome, who committed them to writing. Accurate research has dispelled this notion." (Catholic Dictionary, pgs. 41, 42.)
The following quote, which has long been refuted since the 16th century as being "authentic," is still cited and used by Catholics today, when wishing to uphold its hierarchical structure:
"A letter from Clement to James forms an epilogue to H. In it Clement relates how Peter before his death gave his last instructions and set Clement in his own chair as his successor in the See of Rome...The writer knows a complete system of ecclesiastical organisation. Peter sets a bishop over each city, with priests and deacons under him; the office of bishop is well defined" (Catholic Encyclopaedia, IV, pgs. 14-144.)
The above is inaccurate in many ways. The apostolic constitution of 270 AD taught Linus as successor to Peter, not Clement. Yet this source (written allegedly by Clement himself) was later deemed a fake (authored 325 AD), by the Catholic church:
"We must nevertheless abandon any attempt to argue from Clementine [20 books by this author], since the oldest parts betray themselves more and more as a product of the third century - he was guilty of arbitrary inventions and changes" (Catholic Encyclopaedia, VII, pgs. 327.)
Once again Rome was forced to come clean after some real scholars raised their game and exposed forgeries with Christendom, dating back centuries.
And on and on it went. Until the bishops in the eastern church (Constantnople) split from the west (Rome) during the "great schism" (Look it up!) This left Rome being the most influencial church in the west, and thus the seed bed for Roman Catholicism was laid, it would not come to full bloom until Leo in the 6th century. But nevertheless its quite clear that the origin of the Roman papacy has its root in deceitful claims and forged documents.
In his book "Catholicism Against Itself" O.C. Lambert writes "One may ask: how did Rome get away with lying for so long to the masses? Well, if Emperor Leo (401-474AD) couldn't read or write, one can easily guess how rampant ignorance was too the rest of the then Catholic world ( pg 63.) and on page 56 Lambert also remarks how Thomas Aquinas embarrassingly quotes "seven times from documents that were known forgeries."
And thus, to answer the original question of why I trust the Bible and not the Roman Catholic Church is because the Bible is true. The Roman Catholic Church is NOT!
Good night and God Bless!
Luke, could you PLEASE wait until I catch up to you before you post anything else. Thanks! :D
I was listening to this on my plane ride. I found it helpful. http://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/...
P.S. Sproul, who is a highly regarded reformed theologian, also has a new book called "Are we together?" which analyzes the Roman Catholic Church, from a solid protestant perspective. Its not on kindle so I had to order the hardcopy... Should be good.
Luke wrote: "And seeing how we are discussing the "Protestant" perspective of the history and authority of the Roman Catholic Church. Referring to one of the original protestant Reformers is extremely relevant to the subject. "That's not what we are suposed to be discussing at all. We are supposed to be discussing who has the power to declare "this is the cananon", because you Protestants don't agree it's the Pope. Luke, we are getting a little off topic here, because argueing about why the Pope can or can't declare the canon, doesn't tell me who you think DOES have the authority to say to say "this is the canon".
But, oh well. I'm happy to discuss the Pope as well. Just to update you all, I'm halfway done with my response to Luke's two large posts (I write them on Microsoft Word, and then paste it on here.). Of course, now I have two more large posts to work on next...
I have no idea how you get so much time to post, Luke, but I wish I had your time! :D
Luke, let me be up front, that I have VERY limited knowledge about Church history. I learn as I Google, honestly. So I’m not in the position to debate with you about posts 184 and 179, until I do some serious research. But there are some points you made that I do feel I am able to address now. Those I have posted below. Posts 184 and 179 I promise I will respond to, but after I do some deep research. I hope you understand. I would also like to add, great points! I’ve never heard about this stuff before, and I’m excited to learn about the early church. Luke wrote: “The point I am trying to make is that the early "Catholic Church" seemed to point to the scriptures for their authority, not the traditions of the church fathers, or the bishop of Rome (I.e. the Pope).”
There are two examples I know of, in which Peter exercises his infallibility in Acts.
Chapter 11: 1-19
[1] And the apostles and brethren, who were in Judea, heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. [2] And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, [3] Saying: Why didst thou go in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them? [4] But Peter began and declared to them the matter in order, saying: [5] I was in the city of Joppe praying, and I saw in an ecstasy of mind a vision, a certain vessel descending, as it were a great sheet let down from heaven by four corners, and it came even unto me. [6] Into which looking, I considered, and saw fourfooted creatures of the earth, and beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air: [7] And I heard also a voice saying to me: Arise, Peter; kill and eat. [8] And I said: Not so, Lord; for nothing common or unclean hath ever entered into my mouth. [9] And the voice answered again from heaven: What God hath made clean, do not thou call common. [10] And this was done three times: and all were taken up again into heaven. [11] And behold, immediately there were three men come to the house wherein I was, sent to me from Caesarea. [12] And the Spirit said to me, that I should go with them, nothing doubting. And these six brethren went with me also: and we entered into the man's house. [13] And he told us how he had seen an angel in his house, standing, and saying to him: Send to Joppe, and call hither Simon, who is surnamed Peter, [14] Who shall speak to thee words, whereby thou shalt be saved, and all thy house. [15] And when I had begun to speak, the Holy Ghost fell upon them, as upon us also in the beginning. [16] And I remembered the word of the Lord, how that he said: John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. [17] If then God gave them the same grace, as to us also who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ; who was I, that could withstand God? [18] Having heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying: God then hath also to the Gentiles given repentance unto life.
Notice that Peter “declared to them”. Notice that Peter made this declaration based on Scripture (11:16)...and NON-Scrpiture, both a vision (11:5) and what he saw (11:15). The other apostles, after hearing Peter’s decleration, accepted Peter’s teaching, “holding their peace”. From this, even if you deny the Pope’s infallibility, we can learn that while sometimes only Scripture was used to make decisions in the early Church, there were times when non-Scripture was taken into account as well. This is significant.
Acts 15: 5-14
[5] But there arose some of the sect of the Pharisees that believed, saying: They must be circumcised, and be commanded to observe the law of Moses. [6] And the apostles and ancients assembled to consider of this matter. [7] And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. [8] And God, who knoweth the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as to us; [9] And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. [10] Now therefore, why tempt you God to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? [11] But by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe to be saved, in like manner as they also. [12] And all the multitude held their peace; and they heard Barnabas and Paul telling what great signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. [13] And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying: Men, brethren, hear me. [14] Simon hath related how God first visited to take of the Gentiles a people to his name. [15] And to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written: [16] After these things I will return, and will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and the ruins thereof I will rebuild, and I will set it up: [17] That the residue of men may seek after the Lord, and all nations upon whom my name is invoked, saith the Lord, who doth these things. [18] To the Lord was his own work known from the beginning of the world. [19] For which cause I judge that they, who from among the Gentiles are converted to God, are not to be disquieted. [20] But that we write unto them, that they refrain themselves from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
Notice here again, that in the midst of “disputing”, Peter “rose up”, and again made a declaration that was accepted by the Church. You said that this declaration was made based on Scripture, 15: 16-17. James did not say Peter reached this conclusion after studying Amos, although it’s possible. James did say Amos was IN AGREEMENT with Peter’s declaration.
Luke wrote: “Now the fact that these scriptures were commonly referred to and thoroughly examined prior to Carthage is clearly seen in the fact that they were the source of authority in the Arius Controversy. So we shouldn't assume that these books were foreign to the church up to this point. In other words, the council of Carthage was not necessarily trying to figure out which of the writings were authentic or not, but instead were officially confirming what the had been common knowledge to the church for many years. the scriptures were Cannonized through relatively simple means by the church as a whole, not Rome ”Yes, they were commonly referred to, and thoroughly examined. I think you are missing an important piece of information. Why did the Roman Catholic Church bother to create the canon? The Church created the Canon so that the Christians would know what books could be read at Mass, because only Scripture can be read at Mass. There are a lot of religious books/speeches/articles, that are free of error, and the faithful could benefit from. But only Scripture can be read at Mass. We don’t read things St. Francis of Assisi, Scott Hahn, the Church Fathers, or Mother Theresa wrote in Mass, in place of reading the Bible. Like you said, many books of the modern Bible were commonly refered to, thoroughly examined, and held as authoritative, before Carthage. I would point out that there were other books that didn’t make it into our modern Bible that were also commonly refered to, thoroughly examined, and held as authoritative (The Epistle of Barnabus, for example.) But it was Carthage, that what books could be read at Mass was declared by the Pope and Bishops. (The Bible is a Catholic Book, CD by apologist Michael Barber http://www.catholic.com/profiles/mich... , http://www.marianland.com/stjoseph100... )
I also found this article that I found to be of interest: http://www.catholicevangelism.org/h-c...
“The regional or local Catholic Church Councils of Hippo, 393 A.D., and Carthage, 397 A.D., and later, Carthage 419 A.D. gave us the canon of Sacred Scripture as we know it today. Although these were just local councils, Saint Augustine did insist that the list given by these councils be sent to Rome for approval. Pope Saint Siricius (384-399 A.D.) approved the canon just as his papal predecessor Pope Damasus I had done in a Synod in 382 A.D. with a formal writing "Decretal of Gelasius", de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris. (The archeological findings and analysis pertaining to the Council of Rome 382 A.D. and some of the Popes may not be a settled fact.)”
With regards to the last sentence, I accept that is probably true. But I also think it is an established fact that it was a Roman Catholic council that created the actual canon, even if we don’t know exactly who it was that took part in that council. I think one piece of evidence for my belief is found in the same article, :http://www.catholicevangelism.org/h-c... :
“A friend of Saint Jerome, Saint Exuperius of Toulouse, a Gallican bishop, wrote to Pope Innocent I in a formal letter requesting the list of canonical books. The Pope replied - honoring Saint Exuperius - with a letter listing the canonical books: Consulenti Tibi Dated February 405 A.D. This list is the same as the canonical list that Catholics have today. This includes the Protestant apocrypha or Catholic deuterocanonical books of the Holy Bible.”
So what I’m saying is that while many people (not necessarily all) did hold the books in our modern bibles as authoritative before Carthage, there was widespread disagreement about what books could be read in Mass. It was the Roman Catholic Church that declared our Canon as the books that could be read at Mass.
Luke wrote: “ Now let us fast forward to the era of the Protestant Reformation and specifically the Council of Trent which is the official Roman Catholic response to the protestant's accusations, namely that the Catholic Church had committed apostasy through the invention of teachings such as purgatory,indulgences and rejecting the apostolic teaching of justification by faith alone apart from works. And also the abuse of God's word by not allowing it to be translated into common languages so that all men could benefit from it's riches.”These accusations have absolutely nothing to do with our discussion of the Canon, but I’ll bite.
First of all, we didn’t invent anything, and that is common knowledge, even if you don’t agree that we have the right teachings.
Purgatory---2 Macabees 12:46 “It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.”
Regarding A Defense of Macabees/Purgatory:
-- http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/0...
-- http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/72...
-- http://www.thesacredpage.com/2011/09/...
-- http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-ro...
Indulgences---Some verses I found reading my Bible, include:
--Luke 21: 1-4 suggests that giving to the Church is something Jesus approves of.
--1 Timothy 6:18 says we are to “To do good, to be rich in good works, to give easily”
--Mark 10:21 says that giving money to charity gains you “treasure in heaven”, which is of course, grace.
--Galations 5:22, says that charity is a fruit of the Holy Spirit, suggesting charitable giving brings grace, as does 1 Corinthians 13:13
Also: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/myths-...
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/primer... (Biblical Defense)
Faith Alone—James…the APOSTLE, says it best.
James 2:17-26
“[17] So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself. [18] But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith. [19] Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble. [20] But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? [21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? [22] Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? [23] And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. [24] Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? [25] And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers, and sending them out another way? [26] For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead.”
I particularly love how James pointed out that the devil himself has faith (2:19). I’m not calling you the devil, not at all. I’m saying that-as James CLEARLY points out-your claim that the doctrine of “faith alone” is apostolic is a joke. All the Bible quotes that you provided showing we are saved by faith are perfectly correct. But we are not saved by faith ALONE.
Catachism of Catholic Church, section 161: “Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation.42 “Since ‘without faith it is impossible to please [God]’ and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life ‘but he who endures to the end.’”43”
In fact, an article I found makes an excellent point.
Source: http://www.catholic-convert.com/2011/...
“How does one receive salvation, justification, new birth and eternal life?
By believing in Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31)?
By repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9)?
By baptism (Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5)?
By the work of the Spirit (Jn 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6)?
By declaring with our mouths (Lu 12:8; Rom 10:9)?
By coming to a knowledge of the Truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26)?
By maintaining the faith (Col 1:22-23; Mt 24:13)?
By works (John 5:28-29; Rom 2:6, 7; James 2:24)?
By grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)?
By his blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22)?
By His righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1)?
By His cross (Eph 2:16; Col 2:14)?
Can we cut any one of these out of the list and proclaim it alone as the means of salvation? Can we be saved without faith? without God?s grace? without repentance? without baptism? without the Spirit? These are all involved and necessary; not one of them can be dismissed as a means of obtaining eternal life. Neither can one be emphasized to the exclusion of another. They are all involved in salvation and entry into the Church. The Catholic Church does not divide these various elements of salvation up, overemphasizing some while ignoring others; rather she holds them all in their fullness.”
Translating to other languages: Remember the times. How many people could read - in any language? What was the language of religion, science, commerce, education, and just about anything else in Europe? LATIN. Latin was the prevailing language throughout Europe. More people could read Latin than any other language on the continent. Not speak, but read. (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/ind...) When the printing press came along, the Church had no problem translating to other languages, as long as the Translations were accurate.
Luke wrote: “Also in the sixth session of the council the Catholic Church, understanding the Protestant "faith alone" doctrine to be one of simple human confidence in divine mercy, the Council rejected the "vain confidence" of the Protestants, stating that no one can know who has received the grace of God unless it be confirmed by works. In other words, your right standing with God is half faith and half works.” Luke, I’d like to see the actual quote here, because no offense, but Protestants are notorious for misunderstanding/misinterpreting what Catholics mean. Until then, I’d point out that claiming “no one can know who has received the grace of God unless it be confirmed by works” is FAR different from claiming that “no one has received the grace of God unless it be confirmed by works”. Notice the distinction. Works come from grace, are inspired by grace. What is the point of believing if you do not act according to your beliefs? Grace is an invisible gift from God. Because it is invisible, we can only KNOW it is there, when we see people doing works that are inspired by grace. People KNEW the apostles were filled with grace, not because they had halos. People KNEW the apostles were filled with grace, because their works-preaching, defending Christ, baptizing, performing miracles-showed they were filled with grace. I’d also like to say there is a huge difference between works done because we have faith, and works done without faith. Jesus condemns works without faith rather harshly (Matthew 23:5-6). The Church, likewise, does not endorse works done without faith as meritorious.
I have more coming Luke.
Amos wasn't in agreement with Peter's declaration. Amos wad dead when Peter made his declaration. you can't be in agreement about something that hasn't taken place yet.p.s. Peter explains that the scriptures have more authority than his experience. He says that the prophetic word is more sure than his experience on the mountain (see 2 Pet 1:19)
to be honest, I'm not really interested in further debate. I believe that have given a sufficient answer to why I do not follow Rome's authority. I would add only one thing. Jesus Christ really lived, he really became a man and lived a perfectly obedient life fulfilling the holy Law of God. he really died, absorbing all righteous wrath that you and I deserved. and he really rose again conquering sin and death. and if all we can do in response is blog about our denominations, I fear that perhaps we have missed the point and thus both stand n error. its not about Peter, or Mary, or Calvin or Luther OT Tyndale or you or me IT'S ABOUT JESUS!!!!! all of the universe, and all of human history and all things that are seen and unseen are for one purpose..... to bring Glory to Christ.
"I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. 18 I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his holy people, 19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is the same as the mighty strength 20 he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21 far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way." - Ephesians 1:17-23
and in regards to my use of time. I'm an insomniac who sleeps about 2-3 hours a night. which gives me lots of extra time to read and write/blog . You wish you had my time, I wish I had your sleep.
Luke wrote: “Amos wasn't in agreement with Peter's declaration.”Forgive me if I misunderstood, but what I thought you said in one of your posts was that verses 16-20 of Acts 15 is spoken by Amos. And James tells us that “And to this [what Peter declared] AGREE THE WORDS of the prophets, as it is written”. Again, my apologies if I got this wrong, but my main point--that Acts 15 gives an example of Peter exercising infallibility--remains valid.
Luke wrote: “Peter explains that the scriptures have more authority than his experience.”
Yes, the Bible does have more authority than our own personal experiences. Peter does not say Jesus never gave him infallibility.
Luke wrote: “to be honest, I'm not really interested in further debate. if all we can do in response is blog about our denominations, I fear that perhaps we have missed the point and thus both stand n error. IT'S ABOUT JESUS!!!!!”
Luke, if you want to stop debating, go ahead. But we are in no way missing the point. Discussing and seeking the truth about Jesus together, out of love for Jesus, is in no way missing the point. Seeking the truth about God, and living according to what we learn, is the point of life itself. And seeking the truth is exactly what we are all doing on this thread.
Besides that, I must say I was very much looking forward to hearing your response to Jame's take on "faith alone", that you claim is apostolic. I'll be terribly disapointed if you leave this debate before we can discuss this fascinating and important topic. Also, as I mentioned previously, while you told me why you don't trust the Pope, you did not tell me who you believe had the authority to create the canon in the early church.
Luke wrote: "and in regards to my use of time. I'm an insomniac who sleeps about 2-3 hours a night. which gives me lots of extra time to read and write/blog . You wish you had my time, I wish I had your sleep."I'm sorry to hear that. I'll pray for you.
Does anyone else on here have any comments, as to what Luke and I have been posting? I'd love to hear your reactions to all this.
my take on James 2 is the classical protestant position. that true faith has works accompanying it. Hence Paul refers to "the obedience of faith" (see Romans 1:5 & 16:26). so James is not contradicting Paul but complementing him by saying that true faith is made evident by the works it produces. so James doesn't teach a works salvation! He is not contrasting faith and works , but rather a dead faith that is not accompanied by works with an authentic faith that is vindicated by obedience. So James only helps in the protestant view of justification by faith alone. As Luther once wrote "were saved by faith alone, but faith that saves is never alone."
and I have clearly said multiple times that many of the NT documents were common knowledge to all the churches dating back to the first century with Irenaeus. therefore I don't need the Pope to tell me what the NT is anymore than the early church did. not to mention, there is much historical doubt about whether or not there even was a Roman papacy before the 6th century under Leo the first. And based on your admitted ignorance of church history, and the evidence of foul-play in the Catholic documents, you really cant refute what I have said with anything substantial. Any secular historian worth his salt dates the origin of the Roman Papacy in the 6th century. Some say it was Innocent, some say It was Gregory, most say Leo and given the historic circumstances (the fall of Rome) Im guessing it was him.and also you said that the Canon was put together so that people could use it in mass. That's not the case, the reason the council of carthage wanted an official list was because Jerome was asked to translate the bible from Koine Greek to Latin (the mother tongue of the Roman empire).
last but not least. what I meant by missing the point is this: I have a family to love and serve, a job to work, a church to plant and many people to help, support and disciple. And in light of these things blogging about our denominations (whether you like it or not thats what were doing) just doesn't make my priority list. In fact, based on how little good has come out of these 300 posts I would suggest that this is nothing more than a glorified waste of time.
kapeesh?
BTW, what are your thoughts on http://www.catholic-legate.com/Apolog... before I continue responding to your article? Surely you have a counter argument?