Very helpful historical synopsis of the bad popes. Thanks for that.
The apostles were not infallible; only the Scripture they wrote is infallible.
the Scriptures are infallible because God is infallible.
God is infallible because He is perfect and impeccable and without sin. He cannot lie (Titus 1:2, cannot sin ( I John 1:5)
Therefore, you cannot have an infallible office (pope) without impeccability.
Since so many Popes were indeed sinful and evil; and infallibility comes from impeccability; they prove that the whole infallible/impeccable distinction fails to save the office claim that the papal office in infallible only in matters of teaching, and it has to be ex cathedra etc; yet it is ok for them to be sinful.
the Pharisees were NOT only hypocrites, (peccable; sinful) (Matthew 23); but they also taught wrongly; they were not infallible
Matthew 15/mark 7
teaching as doctrine the precepts of men (mark 7:7, Matthew 15:9)
Matthew 16:11-12
beware of the leaven of the Pharisees
beware . . . of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
So, there is no parallel with Caiaphas' prophesy or any kind of infallible office of the Pharisees, etc.
That part of the argument of the RCC fails in trying to explain infallibility. Since the Pharisees were not only sinful and hypocritical, they were also teaching wrongly; the Papal office was not only sometimes very sinful; but also teaches wrongly; they are not infallible; and history and the un- biblical dogmas of 1215, 1854, 1870, 1950, and Boniface VIIIs statement and Honorius, and others proves this.
But it was a very enlightening summary of the bad popes.
So,Ken, are you saying that I should accept your interpretations of scriputre as the authentic one? A yes or no wil do, and please give reasons for either your yes or your no.
The apostles were not infallible; only the Scripture they wrote is infallible.
So if the impeccable/infallible problem does not stop the apostles from writing infallibly why does it stop a pope from doing so? The impeccability is required but it is provided by the Holy Spirit in both cases. Why is one a problem and the other is not?
Hi Ken,
Your statement that infallibility comes from impeccability highlights a common misperception of the dogma of infallibility. The charism of infalliblity conferred on the Catholic Church is guarantee by God that DESPITE sinful men occupying the seat of St. Pete, neither the Church nor the men who occupy the Papal throne wll ever officially teach error.
What prevented any of the Popes listed in Dave's article to declare their sinful acts not to be sinful if it was not the Holy Spirit? While you implicitly reference Purgatory and some Marian dogmas which Catholics argue are based on Scriipture either explicitly or implicitly, do you not find it remarkable that none of those sinful men Dave named ever once used their office to declare something that is expressly contrary to Scripture to be dogmatic. Personally, I find it to be divine intervention just as Christ promised.
Infallibility is a limitation on the Pope's authority which permits him to interpret the Scriptures and Apostolic Tradition, but not make up new ones. Look for that in a Christian denomination where all sorts of things that were called sinful a hundred years ago, like birth control, abortion, divorce, homosexual relationships, to name a few, are now no longer sins but even things that are to be sanctioned, blessed and celebrated. I even know of one Christian (so-called) church close to home here that allows its sanctuary to be used for Wicca meetings. To my knowledge, the Catholic Church has never wavered in its moral teaching, regardless of some of who may have not followed it, including Popes. Now if you can me show a Pope who taught that we are to worship a Baal or Zeus or the like, or that Martin Luther really was divinely commissioned to make the dogmatic claims he did, then your argument might have wings.
Invariably, when infallibility is discussed Protestants always have to mention the case of Honorius or Liberius which has been argued here many times on Dave's blog and elsewhere. I will not repeat the arguments again.
However, your reference to Boniface VIII, I think is a bit more obscure. To which of his acts are you referring? The pronouncement of the Papal Bulls, Ausculta Fil or the famous (or infamous if you are a non Catholic) Unam Sanctum? The forged Bull, Deum Time? His meddling in the temporal politics of Europe at the time? I think that you need to be more explicit in your claims so that it can be fully expressed, addressed, explained and/or refuted.
Finally, if the Church does not have the charism of infallibilty, please explain why one should accept the filoque as the Catholic Church teaches over the Orthodox objection. If the Church is not immune from error, how can one definitively express the doctrine of the Hloy Trinity from Scripture alone. While it is certainly arguable based on Scripture, Scripture itself is not definitive. In short, without the infallible authority of the Church, one is left to specu
(cont. from the prior comment) In short, without the infallible authority of the Church, one is left to speculate as to the truth. With all due respect, I believe you have to come up with a better argument against infallibility than the one you are making if you are going to convince anyone otherwise.
P.S. Peter, I agree with the point you are making!
>Therefore, you cannot have an infallible office (pope) without impeccability.
I reply: Rather you can't make this stupid argument without postulating a doctrine Catholics have never held. You can have infallibility without impeccability. Moses wrote an infallible Torah but the man disobey God & struck the rock when he should have asked it for water. Duh!
>Since so many Popes were indeed sinful and evil; and infallibility comes from impeccability; they prove that the whole infallible/impeccable distinction fails to save the office claim that the papal office in infallible only in matters of teaching, and it has to be ex cathedra etc; yet it is ok for them to be sinful.
Ken what the hell has happen to you? Has your IQ dropped 200 points since I was last here? You used to be so intelligent what's with the Chick Comic crap?
Geez!
Is what Ken Temple wrote logical? Or is is just the protestant interpretation of it?
May be the Bible will help clarify this argument about doing what the pharasees taught:
Matthew 23:1-4 is preatty clear on the subject.
The difference between the Pharasees and the Church. They may have been seated in the Chair of Moses but they were not given the Keys. To which only Peter was given.
To that extent you are right there is no parallel, to that which was given to Peter, for the Church and its commission has no equal.
the Pharisees were NOT only hypocrites, (peccable; sinful) (Matthew 23); but they also taught wrongly; they were not infallible
Well, Ken, I think you would have to agree the exact same thing could be said of the reformers themselves! And I mean no offense, but Calvin in particular was the very embodiment of Phariseeism! And “a true mad dog” to boot, assuming these sources are reliable. http://books.google.com/books?q=...F-8&sa=N&
tab=wp
Certainly he showed himself (far) more ruthless than any so-called “bad pope.” To the Protector Somerset this poor wretched soul wrote (Oct. 22, 1548 ):
“[those] who persist in the superstitions of the Roman Antichrist (i.e. Catholics)….deserve to be repressed by the sword,” “merentur Gladio ultore coerceri, cum non in regem tantum insurgant, sed in Deum ipsum.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Joh...alvin#Letters_2
http://books.google.com/books?id...as_brr=0&
pgis=1
See also: Ludwig Pastor, History of the Popes, vol. 15, introduction, xlii, note 1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Lud..._Volumes_Online
But moving on…
The apostles were not infallible; only the Scripture they wrote is infallible.
Not true!
Now while it is true that Scripture does teach that all scripture is indeed inspired, nowhere does it teach that only scripture is inspired. Nowhere.
And as a matter of fact, several NT passages seem to indicate that ordinary souls too - at least in certain instances - are quite capable of making inspired (and thus presumably infallible) utterances!
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. John 14:26
And when they shall bring you into the synagogues and to magistrates and powers, be not solicitous how or what you shall answer, or what you shall say. For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what you must say. Luke 11-12
But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. Matt. 10:19-20
the Spirit of your Father speaking through you? Sounds precariously close to infallibility to me!
I'd like to see any single protestant denomination surviving for centuries with something like that in their top ranks.
Infallibility is a limitation on the Pope's authority which permits him to interpret the Scriptures and Apostolic Tradition, but not make up new ones.
That is exactly what the RCC and the Papal office has done in history, make up new doctrines not in the Scriptures, and call it "an interpretation" and call it an infallible office and a protection against making the wrong doctrine. I understand the point you guys are making with the fact that Moses and Paul and Isaiah and Matthew were not impeccable, but God used them to write Scripture; yes I understand intellectually the parallel you are trying to make with the episcopal office developed into Pope for the RCC. the problem is that that parallel should give them the ability to keep giving new revelations and new canonical Scripture, but even the RCC says no to that. Therefore, the parallel falls apart.
So,Ken, are you saying that I should accept your interpretations of scriputre as the authentic one? A yes or no wil do, and please give reasons for either your yes or your no.
peter
I am not claiming anything special about myself; or "self as the only infallible interpreter" and I am not seeking to be arrogant. We are responsible to interpret, but we are responsible to interpret the text properly. This is the charge always from your school of thought; that we set ourselves up as "pope", etc.
But, yes, you should accept the Scriptures and see that Jesus not only rebuked the Pharisees behavior and hypocrisy in Matthew 23, but He also rebuked their teaching in Matthew 16:11-12 and Matthew 15/Mark 7. Therefore, Jesus is not saying the seat of Moses is authority to make infallible interpretations, but Jesus assumes reading the Law and their responsibility to interpret the law properly. It is not a blanket authority. The RCC says, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary doctrine is our right and authority to proclaim as the right doctrine; as what the RCC does in transubstantiation (contradicts John 6), Immaculate Conception(Contradicts Luke 1:46-47), Papal Infallibility (contradicts 2 Tim. 3:16-17 and Titus 1:2), Bodily Assumption (contradicts everything in NT), Indulgences(contradicts Romans and Galatians), treasury of Merit, Mary as Mediatrix (violates and contradicts I Timothy 2:5) and yet, these all violate canonical Scripture. Yes, it is not hard to see that praising Mary and praying to her is wrong, based on Rev. 19:10 and 22:8-9.
About Boniface VIII, I was thinking of Unam Sanctum in 1302 AD, where he said "It is all together necessary for salvation for every human creature to be submitted to the Roman Pontiff."
Not only is this one of the most arrogant statements ever made in history, but one of the most clearly un-Biblical and contradictory to the the Bible. The Bible says, "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved . . . " Acts 16:31
"By grace you are saved . . . " Ephesians 2:8-9
"If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10:9
It also contracts the modern Post Vatican II RCC and catechism which says that atheists, pagans, and Muslims can be saved without knowing Christ; which also contradicts the Council of Florence and Trent, etc.
Your infallibility claim is very complicated, nuanced, and qualified, but it just really seems to fall flat. And Honorius and the other popes who committed heresy (Liberius, Vigilius, Zosimus, others) even though a lot has been written; you have yet to really honestly deal with the realities of how the 1870 dogma contradicts all that history of clear heresy.
I reply: Rather you can't make this stupid argument without postulating a doctrine Catholics have never held. You can have infallibility without impeccability. Moses wrote an infallible Torah but the man disobey God & struck the rock when he should have asked it for water. Duh!
I understand that RCC never claimed to have both. And I uderstand the parallel you and your RCC is making with Moses and Paul, etc. being peccable, but writting infallible Scripture. I understand the argument.
Problem is that infallibility is a quality in God and in His word. He is infallible because He is perfect and does not and cannot lie and cannot sin.
Infallibility only comes as a result of the words and word of God that are God-breathed being the words that God wanted to be written in Scripture. (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21, John 10:35; Galatians 3:16) Infallibility is a "God-breathed" quality, because God is infallible. John 17:17.
Paul rebuked Peter in Galatians 2, for his hypocrisy and teaching -- because it says "he was not straightforward about the truth of the gospel" (Galatians 2:14) Paul not only rebuked behavior, but he corrected teaching by the whole context and passage (2:11 through to the end of chapter 3)
Ken what the hell has happen to you? Has your IQ dropped 200 points since I was last here? You used to be so intelligent what's with the Chick Comic crap?
Where does Chick make that argument about infallibility and impeccability? I have not read or seen a Chick comic tract in over 20 years. I think I saw a few in my lifetime long time ago; but I don't recall any specific ones on the RCC; although I have heard a lot about him and that he went overboard and intelligent protestants do not claim him as part of their group or way of arguing against the RCC and its doctrines.
Yes, John 14:26 is a promise of the Holy Spirit's guidance to the apostles for them to teach and preach and then to write down everything necessary.
and we (all believers in Christ, in history and now; after canon was finished) can only have that promise if we stick to and follow the canonical Scriptures for the right interpretation.
Same goes for the other passages you have written. No one can claim "the Holy Spirit" guided me, when their interpretation is a contradiction of the text. There is only one Holy Spirit and one God-breathed Scripture. They agree with each other. Matthew 1:18-25 shows Perpetual Virginity doctrine of Mary of the RCC to be wrong. The gymnastics you go through to justify it are amazing; including Jerome, who was right on Apocrypha, but wrong on that.
And when they shall bring you into the synagogues and to magistrates and powers, be not solicitous how or what you shall answer, or what you shall say. For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what you must say. Luke 11-12 [Luke 12:11-12]
But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. Matt. 10:19-20
the Spirit of your Father speaking through you? Sounds precariously close to infallibility to me!
Ben M
These are promises to all believers in Christ to persevere under persecution. There is nothing about infallible office or interpretations or new revelations or canon here. The context is persecution and the wisdom of the Holy Spirit to speak the gospel boldly and truthfully and according to sound doctrine; according to what is revealed in canonical Scripture.
Was that promise applied or appropriated by Liberius (352-356 AD); when he caved in under pressure and persecution and agreed with the Arian false doctrines and agreed to the excommunication of Athanasius?
Yes or no
You quoted it correctly --
"At that time you will be given what to say, . . . "
"He later reversed his position again, but it cannot be denied that Liberius temporarily endorsed at least a semi-Arian confession, and did so as the legitimate pope. This is verified by Athanasius, Hilary, and Jerome. Liberius obviously apostatized for personal and political reasons, but if the Romans Catholic Church's interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19 were correct, and if the Holy Spirit guarantees that no heresy will infect the papacy, then this incident would never have occurred." (William Webster, The Church at Rome at the Bar of History, p. 64)
>Problem is that infallibility is a quality in God and in His word. He is infallible because He is perfect and does not and cannot lie and cannot sin.
You are making up novel theological catagories that even the Reformers themselves never used.
Infallibility means the inability to commit error. Nothing more. Paul was infallible & Inspired(two separate catagories BTW) when writing scripture & the Pope is Infallible when speaking EX CATHEDRA. BOTH really solely on God for these lent attributes. Neither are perfect & have them by nature.
So claiming Infalibiltity automatically demands impeccability is argument by special spleading & lowbrow. You are better than the braindead crap that comes out of the pages of Chick Comics.
>Where does Chick make that argument about infallibility and impeccability?
He conflates the two in all his anti-Catholic polemics. Try reading them again. Can you show me where he explains that Infallibity & is seperate catagory from impeccability? No, which is why no intellectually respectable Conta-Catholic polemicist would be caught dead using his crap.
It would be like me using Bob Sungenis to criticise Judaism.
Your argument is stupid. Even if Catholicism was false IT STILL STUPID.
Good Grief!!!
>That is exactly what the RCC and the Papal office has done in history, make up new doctrines not in the Scriptures,
I reply: Like Sola fide (James 2:24) or Sola Scriptura (2 Thes 3:6)?
>and call it "an interpretation" and call it an infallible office and a protection against making the wrong doctrine.
It IS interpretation which is at the heart of the matter. It is your fallible interpretation Vs Our's which makes them equal & I see no reason to hold your fallbile reformers made up doctrines & interpretations over ours. OTOH if the Church is infallible then to hold your interpretation would be spiritual suicide.
>the problem is that that parallel should give them the ability to keep giving new revelations and new canonical Scripture.
Has NEVER happened in 2,000 years. All Catholic doctrine are contained in the public revelation given to the Apostles in scripture & traditon.
Luther made up Sola Scriptura & Private interpretation. Calvin made up eternal security & Zwingli made up the idea the Eucherist is just a symbol.
>Was that promise applied or appropriated by Liberius (352-356 AD); when he caved in under pressure and persecution and agreed with the Arian false doctrines and agreed to the excommunication of Athanasius?
Please cite the decree of Liberius where he commands all Christians to profess Arianism. Oh wait there is no such thing! Bill Clinton's obvious belief gays should be in the military by itself is no suficient to change military policiy. That requires an excecutive order.
Where did Liberius formally as Poep change Catholic Christological doctrine & anull Nicea? He didn't & by the Grace & Power of the Holy Spirit he couldn't.
Being tortured by the Arian Emperor into signing an AMBIGIOUS Christological formula is no more sugnificant than if I tortured CLinton into signing a document that merely said "People should be allowed to serve their country regardless of their private life". The Dept of Defense would laugh at that the way I laugh at you weak attempt to prove Papal falibility.
> About Boniface VIII, I was thinking of Unam Sanctum in 1302 AD, where he said "It is all together necessary for salvation for every human creature to be submitted to the Roman Pontiff."
Tell that to Korah who thought it was arogant that Moses had authority from God to proclaim only the Sons of Arron could be Priests. The Letter to Jude warns Christians against following His example of Private interpretation of divine revelation.
>He later reversed his position again, but it cannot be denied that Liberius temporarily endorsed at least a semi-Arian confession,
Bill Clinton endorced gays openly serving in the military BUT as president he FORMALLY implimented "Don't ask. Don't Tell" which prevented gays from serving openly. Private opinion does not equal executive action.
>and did so as the legitimate pope. This is verified by Athanasius, Hilary, and Jerome. Liberius obviously apostatized for personal and political reasons,
So what? Until you produce the Decree of Liberius anulling Niecea & FORMALLY commanding Catholics to profess Arian or Semi-Arian Christology this is just so much desperate bluster.
>but if the Romans Catholic Church's interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19 were correct, and if the Holy Spirit guarantees that no heresy will infect the papacy, then this incident would never have occurred." (William Webster, The Church at Rome at the Bar of History, p. 64)
Nobody believes "no heresy will infect the papacy" rather we believe the HS will prevent the Pope from formally making heresy doctrine.
This just shows Protestant WOULD LIKE IT if we believed the Pope could do no wrong, was sinless & never made a mistake in anything & was the equal to God Himself. But that is just wishful thinking & sour grapes on their part since they have no legitimate case against the papacy.
God protects his own.
So claiming Infalibiltity automatically demands impeccability is argument by special spleading & lowbrow. You are better than the braindead crap that comes out of the pages of Chick Comics.
>Where does Chick make that argument about infallibility and impeccability?
He conflates the two in all his anti-Catholic polemics. Try reading them again.
First of all; please calm down a bit; the tone and spirit of your writings feels like you are hyper-hyperventilating and seems angry.
As I wrote, I have not read any of his (Jack Chick) material in about 20 years; I only remember reading one or two -- they were his style cartoon style; they were just basic tracts on going to either heaven or hell, etc.; and they were not about R. Catholicism.
I have heard that Jack Chick is not good; from both CRI and many others; so I have no interest in wasting time with his material.
My point is that when you say "Infallibility is the inability to err." you are automatically invoking a quality that is only in God;; and by definition not in any man, except the one God-man, Jesus Christ. The Scriptures are God's word and God-breathed, therefore they are infallible. Humans not only err, but sin. I understand the parallel you seek to make, but it just does not compute. You deny there has not been new revelation, but actually the dogmas and doctrines (above and listed in most apologetic works comparing RCC with Protestantism) are all practically new revelations, additions, and claimed to be part of the apostolic deposit, but are not; and you have no proof that the apostles taught those things. People made errors. Very simple.
>First of all; please calm down a bit; the tone and spirit of your writings feels like you are hyper-hyperventilating and seems angry.
I'm sorry if I'm anoyed but your arguments are just so.......I can't believe you are making them.
>As I wrote, I have not read any of his (Jack Chick) material in about 20 years; I only remember reading one or two -- they were his style cartoon style; they were just basic tracts on going to either heaven or hell, etc.; and they were not about R. Catholicism.
I have read threw his RC stuff. He clearly equates infallibility with impeccability.
>I have heard that Jack Chick is not good; from both CRI and many others; so I have no interest in wasting time with his material.
Your real problem is "very bad argument by special pleading" syndrome.
>My point is that when you say "Infallibility is the inability to err."
When I say it I am giving the CATHOLIC understanding Vs. your novel non-squitor no Catholic has ever beleived in 2,000 years.
>you are automatically invoking a quality that is only in God;; and by definition not in any man, except the one God-man, Jesus Christ.
That is Logically absurd, self contradictory & special pleading on your part.
>The Scriptures are God's word and God-breathed, therefore they are infallible. Humans not only err, but sin.
HELLO! God GAVE these scriptures infallibly threw fallible sinful men by divine inspiration & THAT doesn't make the sacred writers sinless gods so LOGICALLY an Ex CATHEDRA statement doesn't make the Pope a sinless god either.
Your claim is special pleading & illogical.
>I understand the parallel you seek to make, but it just does not compute.
It makes perfect sense. Your view is inconsistant & self-contradictory. Paul under Divine inspiration writes inerrant & Infallible scripture but he is not a sinless god if he does so but the Pope makes an EX CATHEDRA pronouncement he MUST be a sinless god?
Dude that doesn't even pass the laugh test.
>You deny there has not been new revelation,
but actually the dogmas and doctrines (above and listed in most apologetic works comparing RCC with Protestantism) are all practically new revelations,
The burden of proof is on you.
>additions, and claimed to be part of the apostolic deposit, but are not; and you have no proof that the apostles taught those things. People made errors. Very simple.
The Holy Spirit protected His Church from error or do you now believe God is fallible & too weak to do so?
Abolutely EVERYTHING a Catholic believes(sinless Mary, 73 book Canon, Papal Authority etc) can be found taught in the first 5 centuries of the Christian era. NOTHING unique to Protestantism(Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, Private Interpretation, 66 book bible, Eternal security) can be so found.
That is an undisputed FACT. But as interesting as that tangent is your claim infallibity MUST equal sinlessness & divinity when the Pope speaks EX CATHEDRA but not
The Ken-Ben escapades are back! Love the vigorous discussion!
Left my sentence up in the air.
....That is an undisputed FACT. But as interesting as that tangent is your claim infallibity MUST equal sinlessness & divinity when the Pope speaks EX CATHEDRA but not when St Paul writes scripture is logically absurd.
A couple of weeks ago I started a post of my own on the bad popes, in which I ranked them based on their level of wickedness and separated fact from fiction. Hopefully I can get around to posting it soon.
This post is superb. Bravo, Dave!
Thanks Will. It came about from my work with Coming Home Network. Someone asked a question and this was the result.
Ken, thank you for clarifying the reference to Boniface VIII, "I was thinking of Unam Sanctum in 1302 AD, where he said 'It is all together necessary for salvation for every human creature to be submitted to the Roman Pontiff.' "
I went and read the Latin text of Unam Sanctum myself. My read is a just a little different (My Latin is really rusty-30 years old rusty). I understand the passage to read something like it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
So? When Jesus gave Peter the keys and the authority to loose and bind, we Catholics believe Christ said basically the same thing.
Further, one should be mindful of the context of the this passage and consider what Boniface was addresing, which can be found here: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/...on08/
B8unam.htm. In this bull, Pope Boniface was basically claiming that when it came down to a dispute between temporal authority and spiritual authority, spiritual authority has supremacy. In other words, in order to be saved, one must belong to Christ's Church and be subject to the authority He vested in it and the office He created. If one looks at the dispute Boniface was in with the King of France, basically the Pope was claiming that he had the final say in the dispute because his authority came from a higher source than Philip the Fair's, who sought to control the monies that the papacy was receiving from the lands and titles that it held.
You said, "Not only is this one of the most arrogant statements ever made in history, but one of the most clearly un-Biblical and contradictory to the the Bible. The Bible says, "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved . . . " Acts 16:31
"By grace you are saved . . . " Ephesians 2:8-9."
"If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10:9.
Let me ask you this, I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and I also believe in my heart that by grace I am saved. However, someone like James White and the reformers say that because I am a practicing Catholic, I am not saved because I also believe in unbiblical doctrines. Isn't Mr. White, et al., claiming the same authority Boniface did? All Boniface is saying is that in order to be saved, a person must necessarily belong to the Church Christ founded and be subject to the authority of that Church. Every Christian denomination claims the same thing. If it is wrong for Boniface to claim such authority, why is not wrong for James White, et al., to claim it?
Boy-o-boy,
Ken gets thoroughly rebutted in one thread and when his points and assertions are pulled apart, he just moves onto the next one. It ends up being so circular, in both senses. Over and over.
Tiresome. I think we need to rename this blog
Ken Temple Cor Loquitor.
BTW, good topic. If we were to just believe Protestants, the impression would be that pretty much 85% of the popes were bad. Of course many protestants believe he is the 'man of sin' but seriously, this is a good one...
"'It is all together necessary for salvation for every human creature to be submitted to the Roman Pontiff.' "
The NT says be subject to Leaders & those with authority.
Can anyone willfully defy the NT's command on this & not sin?
The NT forbids us to resist all lawful authority regardless if it's civil or religious. If we mortally sin we loose salvation since we don't hold the Eternal Security doctrine John Calvin made up. So any mortally sinful resistance to the Pope's authority is wrong. Thus it is necessary for salvation for everyone to submit to the Pope.
Unam Sanctum applies first to Catholics & all other vinciblly ignorant non-Catholic but obviously as usual invincibly ignorant persons are by nature exempt.
I wanted to jump in to an earlier comment made by Ken (sorry, I've been up to my ears in grading and haven't had a chance to read things). The Bible is technically not infallible. Infallibility is the charism given to the Pope (and Bishops in Council) that prevents error from being taught.
The Bible is inspired, and as such, what is taught is True.
When I first saw this in a book by Scott Hahn, it took me a minute to parse, but the difference is in what is guaranteed. Inspiration is a positive guarantee. What the inspired writers put on paper IS the truth. What the Popes proclaim cannot be in error (provided the conditions are met, etc). The difference is subtle, but important, I think.
The NT says be subject to Leaders & those with authority.
As does the OT.
This is from: The Catechism of Thomas Becon [1512-1567], S.T.P., chaplain to Archbishop Cranmer, predendary of Canterbury, &c. : with other pieces written by him in the reign of King Edward the Sixth by Thomas Becon, John Ayer, Cambridge University Press, 1844. P. 327.
OF THE OFFICE AND DUTY OF SUBJECTS.
Father. What is the duty of subjects toward their superiors?
Son. It consisteth principally in five points The first is that they even from the very heart love and reverence the civil magistrates as the ministers and vicars of God whom God himself doth vouchsafe to adorn and garnish with his own name saying: “Ye are gods.” (Ps. 86:2)
Father. If it be the duty of subjects not only with outward gesture and words to love reverence and honour the higher powers but also with a true and inward affection of the heart then may they not hate them and unworthily speak of them.
Son. You say truth. For God saith by Moses: “Thou shalt not rail upon the gods (that is to say, the temporal magistrates, which execute the office of God), neither blaspheme the ruler of thy people .” (Ex. 22:28 ) … When the people of Israel began to hate Moses and unreverently to speak of him being appointed of God to be their magistrate, Moses answered and said unto them: “Your murmurings are not against us but against the Lord .” (Ex. 16:8 )
http://books.google.com/books?id...s+of+God.%22&
lr
cont...
And this is from vol. 5, note 16, pp. 632-633 of The History of the Catholic Church, Rev. Fernand Mourret, B. Herder, 1947.
King James I attributed to Bellarmine the assertion that every king is chosen by his subjects and for various reasons may be deposed by them. Bellarmine disavowed this doctrine. What the learned Jesuit maintains is merely that the titles of rulers, of whatever sort, are of purely human right, that, at least originally, the right of designating such rulers resides in the people, and that the people have the right to recover their liberty if the government degenerates into tyranny. Thus expressed, Bellarmine's opinion is undoubtedly open to dispute and, in fact, is disputed. But no one can deny that it agrees with the principles enunciated by St. Thomas Aquinas and admitted by most Scholastics. The Protestant theory granted less liberty to the people. Henry VIII set up the divine right of kings in opposition to the divine right of popes. Article 39 of the "Confession of Faith of the Churches of France" declares that "God has established kingdoms, republics, and all other kinds of principalities and whatever pertains to the state of justice, and wishes to be acknowledged as their author. This cause has put the sword in the hands of rulers for the repression of sins." [always the sword with Protestants! - Ben] Calvin declares that the ideal of a good government is more easily attained in an aristocratic regime or in the union of aristocracy and republic. “The domination and overlordship of a single man," says Calvin, "is a form of power the least agreeable to men, but in Scripture it is especial1y recommended as above all others." Kings and magistrates are "the ministers and vicars of God.”
(Cf. Calviri, Institutes, bk. 4, ch. 2; Janet, Histoire de la science politique dans ses rapports avec la morale, II, pp. 150-155.)
The Bible is technically not infallible. Infallibility is the charism given to the Pope (and Bishops in Council) that prevents error from being taught.
Charles, that's a very interesting comment, I must say! Really something to ponder!
Charles is correct. Though if you want to nitpick in the ACT of writing scripture we could say the Sacred writers where infallible because they had been given Divine Inspiration from God the Holy Spirit.
Unam Sanctum applies first to Catholics & all other vinciblly ignorant non-Catholic but obviously as usual invincibly ignorant persons are by nature exempt.
This isn't quite true. Sin has it's own consequences. If we commit sin inadvertently we don't suffer from the spiritual consequences of purposely disobeying God. Still there are other consequences. You have a lack of truth, a lack of unity, and separation from most sacraments. This can be highly destructive and seriously reduces a person's chance of persevering to the end.
Like the latest doctrinal note talks about, we cannot simply assume invincible ignorance makes the church irrelevant. It is truth that will bless them and if they embrace that truth it will allow them to bless us more fully.
Ken, Ben, Randy, and Paul,
Mark Shea posted a nice article at Catholic Exchange about Unam Sanctum and I think would be beneficical to any discussion regarding it. You can link to it here: http://www.catholicexchange.com/....com/node/
64103
In Truth,
Matthew
Let me ask you this, I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and I also believe in my heart that by grace I am saved.
But are you adding Mary as the despenser of all graces and her prayers for you, and your prayers and praises to her and any other saint, and your going to mass and confessing your sins to your priest and giving alms as those deeds that are going to finally get to heaven, if you do all of them faithfully? If you are adding those things, that is the same as the Judaizers adding circumcision to faith and that is "seeking to be justifiied" by human obedience to what you percieve as "God's laws for the church", etc. Paul told the Galatians that were seeking to be perfected by the flesh (Galatians 3:1-5) and "seeking to be justified by obedience to the law" (Galatians 5:1-12). The RCC position of sacramental process of salvation flies in the face of Romans 10:9-10 and Ephesians 2:8-10 and Acts 16:31 and John 3:16-18, etc.
Submission to local church leaders are the fruits and evidences of true belief; not conditions for eternal salvation. (and they, the church leaders must be biblical also; they cannot be dictators and demand that someone believe something unbiblical like the RCC dogmas; otherwise they have canceled out any claim to be "God's true leaders or true church") I understand all your points; and it would be true if you understood the Biblical distinctions between justification and sanctification and condition for salvation (faith alone) and results and fruits of true faith (good works, submission, James 2 and Ephesians 2:10, Gal. 5:22-23, etc.) The RCC's unbiblical-ness has canceled out any claims of being the true church and true leaders. If they would repent of the unbiblical stuff and return to the Bible, "ecumenical" talks would be able to take place.
he Bible is technically not infallible. Infallibility is the charism given to the Pope (and Bishops in Council) that prevents error from being taught.
I understand that that is RCC belief and understanding; but where in the canonical Scriptures does it say anything close to that?
It is just not there; and that is the root problem of the whole RCC edifice.
Infallibility is a quality that is only in God, and by extension, in His word, since He is perfect, His word is perfect. If it is true (John 17:17), and God breathed (2 Tim. 3:16), then it is perfect and infallible. Since perfection, sinlessness, in -ability to err, cannot make mistakes, etc, cannot be separated out in God, nor in His word, then you have no right to separate it out in the alleged claim of infallibility with the RCC leaders, which took 1870 years to actually define, etc.
Paul rebuked Peter, the one who is supposed to be "infallible" right there in Galatians 2:11ff "for not being straightforward as to the truth of the gospel". (Galatians 2:14) Your dogma and claim is destroyed by that passage.
Submission to local church leaders are the fruits and evidences of true belief; not conditions for eternal salvation. (and they, the church leaders must be biblical also;
Where does it say the church leaders must, in your judgement, be biblical? That is you addition to the command that totally makes the command a joke. All you have to do is say "I don't thing that is biblical" and you can disobey anything any church leader tells you. That takes the authority away from God and keeps it firmly in your own sweatly little fist.
Ken says:
"Submission to local church leaders are the fruits and evidences of true belief; not conditions for eternal salvation. (and they, the church leaders must be biblical also; they cannot be dictators and demand that someone believe something unbiblical like the RCC dogmas"
Well Ken, that is a very interesting take on things and I'm sure many Protestant Christians would agree with you, BUT let's take an example of a "church" outside of Los Angeles with quite different approach as to how to form a so-called "local church."
From the New York Times:
"When you start a church, you don't decide who you're going to reach and then pick a music style," senior pastor Tom Mercer told America's newspaper of record. "You pick a music style, and that determines who's going to come."
"Thus, High Desert Church offers a "Classic" service for Baby Boomers and others who came of age during the "Jesus rock" explosion in the '60s and '70s. This service offers a softer brand of acoustic rock — think Byrds or the Eagles — that is easier on the delicate and even damaged ears of older worshippers, said Crandall."
"Meanwhile, other musicians focus on the "Harbor" service for people between the ages of 30 and 50. It features the kind of soaring, inspiring rock that most people would associate with U2 and classic bands from the 1980s. Then the "Seven" service cranks things up another notch, with what Crandall described as a "dark" and "moody" mix of postmodern music for the young."
So Ken, where in the bible did these gentlemen read that "when you start a local church" (by your own authority I might add) that music style determines where you begin? Once again, this brief example shows how many Protestants view "church" as merely feel-good entertainment and a matter of taste. Lots of style but not a lot of substance unfortunately. Give me the Mass and the Eucharist and you can have all the rest.
In Truth,
Matthew
Matthew,
You raise an excellent point and I think much of the "seeker sensitive movement" and the "emerging church" and "emergent" church movements are all wrong.
You are absolutely right in that a church should not be started on styles and ages, but it should be based on principles from the bible -- Acts 2:37-46; 13:1-4; 14:21-23; I Tim. 3, Titus 1.
That is probably one of the 4-5 reasons for some evangelicals leaving and converting the Rome.
Randy,
It doesn't matter what I think, you are trying to impute me with being the one deciding what is biblical and not. No. they must be Biblical according to what God says and thinks, not me.
Otherwise the church leaders do what they want to, as what the RCC did with 1215, 1540s-1564 (Trent?); 1854, 1870, 1950. They "did what was right in their own eyes" and guilty also. The same think you are trying to impute to me; they were guilty of violating.
Ken Wrote:
Yes, John 14:26 is a promise of the Holy Spirit's guidance to the apostles for them to teach and preach and then to write down everything necessary.
and then to write down everything necessary. Where do you get this notion from, Ken? Where does scripture teach that the apostles thought that they were writting down only those traditions that were necessary?
It doesn't matter what I think, you are trying to impute me with being the one deciding what is biblical and not. No. they must be Biblical according to what God says and thinks, not me.
So if it isn't you deciding what is biblical then who is it? You say "according to what God says and thinks" but you have no way to determine that except to assume it is exactly the same thing as you own opinion.
Otherwise the church leaders do what they want to, as what the RCC did with 1215, 1540s-1564 (Trent?); 1854, 1870, 1950. They "did what was right in their own eyes" and guilty also. The same think you are trying to impute to me; they were guilty of violating.
How do you know what they were guilty of? Are you sure the Holy Spirit was not leading them? Is it not possible that God's wisdom could seem foolish to you?
and then to write down everything necessary. Where do you get this notion from, Ken? Where does scripture teach that the apostles thought that they were writting down only those traditions that were necessary?
Peter
That is a theologically derived principle from John 17:8 "the words that You gave Me, I have given to them"
and
Hebrews 1:1-3
Jude 3
Luke 1:1-4
2 Timothy 3:16-17 It is Scripture that is God-breathed, not the person
2 Peter 1:19-21 Scripture is being talked about
etc.
I write these things to you, so that you will know the exact truth, etc. Luke 1:1-4
this is the second letter I am writting to you
2 Peter 3:1
I am being diligent (in writing) so that after I die, you will have something to look at and study and read and mediate on to stir up your sincere mind and remind yourself in the truth, etc.
2 Peter 1:12-21
the burden of apostolic traditions that were not written down that are necessary are on you; and there are none that can be proven that are "claimed" or "alleged", except those that are obviously wrong (like Irenaeus' claim that Jesus was over 50-- the gospels prove that is wrong); and then later Origen and still later Augustine just assume that infant baptism was an apostolic tradition. Basil lists things like prayer to the east, anointing with oil, immersing 3 times, etc. But none of the RCC claims of other traditions that are apostolic are part of the early church testimony to unwritten secret oral tradition. None.
Just by the fact that some apostles took up the pen and started writing, "I Paul write this to you . . . " "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, . . . Matthew, John, Luke, Mark for Peter, etc.
>like Irenaeus' claim that Jesus was over 50--(when he was crucified)
That is a bold face lie & you know it Ken. Anybody who has read Irenaeus knows HE WAS NOT claiming Jesus was 50 when he was crusified rather he was advancing various arguments that Jesus WASN'T merely 30 as the Gnostics had been claiming. He also argued IN THE SAME NARATIVE Jesus could have been 40. Why would he do this if Tradition clearly taught he was 50 as you claim? Because Ireneaus WASN'T claiming tradition taught Jesus was 50 when he was crusified rather Tradition taught he was older than 30. That is what Ireneaus was saying. The Gnostics believed Jesus must have been merely 30 because it corresponded with the 30 Archons in Gnostic mythology. Ireneaus was merely trying to undermine that believe not claim he was actually 50.
>and then later Origen and still later Augustine just assume that infant baptism was an apostolic tradition.
Yet the Armenians, the Copts & the Assyrians assume the SAME Thing as Origen & Augustine & neither of these ancient church groups venerate these men as Fathers.
The FACT IS your so called believers only baptism heresy was invented 1600 years after the fact by Meno Simons & Yohanne Grebel.
Ken,
You say to Randy on 12-17:
"It doesn't matter what I think..."
If this is the case and it really doesn't matter what you think then we can easily dismiss several of your statements to include the ones below:
Ken says: "I THINK much of the "seeker sensitive movement" and the "emerging church" and "emergent" church
movements ARE ALL WRONG."
>The opposite of this is that you "think" that your approach is right.
Ken says: [I THINK]" Submission to local church leaders are the fruits and evidences of true belief; not conditions for eternal salvation"
>Oh really? Thanks for letting us know.
Ken says: "You are absolutely right in that a church should not be started on styles and ages, but [I THINK] it should be based on principles from the bible -- Acts 2:37-46; 13:1-4; 14:21-23; I Tim. 3, Titus 1. "
Interesting. Is that how Jesus started the Church? That is not in my bible for some reason.
Ken, I give you credit. Unlike many other anti-Catholics you can at least be civil and state your arguments or disagreements without making things personal. However, I don't think you realize to the degree that you set yourself up as the arbiter of truth regarding doctrine and dogma. Most of your commentary is based on what you think or how you interpret things. You, as sincerely as can be, are trying to condense 2000 years of Christian tradition into your myopic viewpoint and attempting to convince others as well. I'm sorry Ken, but as you said in your own words, ""It doesn't matter what I think..." The Catholic Church, which Christ founded on the Rock, has been taking on all comers for two millenia and will continue to do so until the return of our King.
In Truth,
Matthew
That is a theologically derived principle from John 17:8 "the words that You gave Me, I have given to them"
Would you call this development of doctrine, Ken?
I am being diligent (in writing) so that after I die, you will have something to look at and study and read and mediate on to stir up your sincere mind and remind yourself in the truth, etc.
2 Peter 1:12-21
Do you have a scripture that reads that we are only to believe what St Peter wrote down? Is there a scripture that reads that St Peter believed that only what he wrote down was the truth?
the burden of apostolic traditions that were not written down that are necessary are on you;
Our liturgical rituals and prayers would suffice to prove our point. How about infant baptism, and the other sacraments that you obhour?
From Ken:
It doesn't matter what I think, you are trying to impute me with being the one deciding what is biblical and not.
Ken, you are kidding yourself. You certainly are deciding what is biblical and what is not.
No. they must be Biblical according to what God says and thinks, not me.
Sounds good as it is. So what evidence can you give me that would allow me to accept that what
Sounds good as it is. So what evidence can you give me that would allow me to accept that what
haloscan not working
>Unlike many other anti-Catholics you can at least be civil and state your arguments or disagreements without making things personal.
Don't call Ken anti-Catholic. Call his really really bad arguments stupid but don't call him anti-Catholic.
I have spoken all hail me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ave Kiaser Jim!!!!
However, I don't think you realize to the degree that you set yourself up as the arbiter of truth regarding doctrine and dogma.
thanks for the other kind words.
I understand the point you make; and this is one of the main points, if not THE crucial point that makes some evangelicals leave Protestantism and convert to the RCC. I understand it. You have the other side "cornered" because my position (and other convinced Evangelicals and Protestants and especially Reformed folks like me) seem arrogant. That is a heavy hitting charge to the person who wants to know God and grow and not be arrogant and prideful. I take that seriously. That is why I am here.
But, I think that a person can be still be confident and humble and use his own mind and study adn think and look at the Scriptures and weigh things.
Romans 14:5 says, "let each person be fully convinced in his own mind."
You all also had to and have to still use your own mind and conscience to come to your own conclusions that RCC is right. It is the same thing. You are sincerely convinced of your position; and I am sincerely convinced of mine.
I think it is very important to do apologetics without being rude and personal; and doing this helps me think and struggle and grow. God is sanctifying us through hardships and struggle.
Got to go and help my wife cook dinner and be a servant.
I admit this is too hard to answer all these questions all the time; and I enjoy it too much. It gives me structure in doing apologetics. But I think we hit the bottom of argumentation again.
But I think we hit the bottom of argumentation again.
The trouble is you have no answers. Nobody does. I give you credit for coming here and responding to the questions. But the point is you can't solve the foundational problem with protestantism. You say you can remain humble and objective and arrive at a better form of Christianity than the Catholic church has. How can you know that? I can look at the many great Catholic over the last 2000 years and bet that they know a little more than me about how to serve Jesus. That I am stronger doing faith their way than doing it my way.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th),
The reason I called Ken "anti-Catholic" is that we are on Dave's blog and according to his defined terms an anti-Catholic is one who does not recognize Catholics as Christians. Ken is in the camp of James White, and others, who believe this. So the term is appropriate.
Peace,
Matthew
Ken,
You say:
"But, I think that a person can be still be confident and humble and use his own mind and study adn think and look at the Scriptures and weigh things."
Romans 14:5 says, "let each person be fully convinced in his own mind."
"You all also had to and have to still use your own mind and conscience to come to your own conclusions that RCC is right. It is the same thing. You are sincerely convinced of your position; and I am sincerely convinced of mine."
Yes, we all can and should read Scripture, ponder it, pray it, etc. However, as in 2 Peter 1:20-21 Scripture is not a matter of private interpretation. Ken, can you not see the vast difference here? Anyone here who is convinced of the veracity of the Catholic Church is defending what the Church teaches--not individualistic interpretations or coming up with their own views of what they "think" or believe the Scriptures say. This is the primary difference in this case.
In Truth,
Matthew
From Ken:
It doesn't matter what I think, you are trying to impute me with being the one deciding what is biblical and not.
Ken, you are kidding yourself. You certainly are deciding what is biblical and what is not.
No. they must be Biblical according to what God says and thinks, not me.
So what evidence can you give me that would allow me to accept that what you say and think is biblical, is actually what God says and thinks is biblical? I guess I have just asked, a truncated version of my earlier question:
"but once again I respectfully demand of you...why should this Greek illiterate trust your interpretation of scripture over that of our Early Church Fathers? Give evidence that you are sent from God and that He has decreed that I should listen to you?"
You are acting on your own behalf and it was for this reason that the scripture below was written in order to inoculate the faithful from misguidance even if it is well meaning:
“We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they say. So we all agree to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul” Acts 15:24-25. These men were known to be sent by the recognized authorities of the Church. Sent to clear up confusion by know doubt, well meaning Christians who had their own ideas about things.
How can you know that?
This is the epistemological method of RCC apologetics. To doubt everything and one selves' ability to think, study and believe the Bible. It does not take a rocket scientist to know that bowing down to icons and pictures and statues and praying to thier "spirit" in heaven, Mary and the saints is wrong. It doesn't take a PHd to know that the Marian dogmas and indulgences are wrong and go against the Bible.
Matthew,
Regarding the term "anti-Catholic" --
When I first entered into Dave's blog here, several years ago, we discussed that issue of "anti-Catholic" and the meaning and Ben Yacov was there from the start and that is why he (and I appreciate that) defended me against that term. I don't remember you being there from beginning, so I don't blame you; since I have pretty much the same doctrine positions and convictions as James White and Eric Svendsen and others that Dave calls "anit-Catholic". Their substance and doctrine and argumentation make sense to me.
I do not like that term, because it implies I am against Catholics as people; or have hatred. I do not.
Dave says the issue is about doctrine, but I still disagree. I believe RCC doctrine is wrong and false and adding to the Bible, but I do not have hatred for Catholics as people; I only want to love as Christ does. I cannot judge you or any one else; but I do believe the doctrine is wrong. So, it is more accurate to say "anti-Catholic doctrine", etc. Dave will likely disagree.
I don't go that far and say that all Catholics are not Christians. The RCC is an historical Christian church, and we disagree over the doctrines of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura, primarily.
Again, I don't like the term; but you of course are free to use it if you want; but I don't agree with it at all.
the difficulty is knowing with certainty or being able to judge someone as "not saved" if they knowingly reject justification by faith alone, and how a Protestant is to understand adding Mary on to a RC person's adding merit of good works and prayers to Mary and alms' giving as what will be the factors that finally get them into heaven, etc.
Those beliefs and doctrines seem to go against the Bible and fall under the anthemas of Galatians 1:8-9; and contradict Gal. 2:16-21; 3:1-5; 5:1-11; also contradict Romans 3, 4, and 5; (and John and Acts and the rest of the Bible) and that is why those who hold that position are considered by you and other RCs as "anti-catholic". If a protestant sincerely believes that when you do those Marian practices, you are actually adding to the requirements for justification and salvation; then both cannot be true at the same time. They sincerely believe you are adding to and corrupting the gospel. I also do doctrinally, but I cannot judge someone.
This is the epistemological method of RCC apologetics. To doubt everything and one selves' ability to think, study and believe the Bible. It does not take a rocket scientist to know that bowing down to icons and pictures and statues and praying to thier "spirit" in heaven, Mary and the saints is wrong. It doesn't take a PHd to know that the Marian dogmas and indulgences are wrong and go against the Bible.
So how do you explain all the people in history that don't agree with that statement? If it is so obvious that these doctrines are wrong then why do so many fine Christians not see it?
Randy,
I don't really know how to explain why so many people believe or do goofy things. It is just as mystifying to me to see on TV the thousands that go and hear and listen to Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, John Hagee, and Joel Osteen. It makes me sad and I cannot comprehend it either. It is just as weird and un-explainable to me; to see tens of thousands of people who believe and follow that false teaching. (the "word of faith" movement; "name it; claim it", prosperity, health and wealth gospel.
Those that work through all the intellectual arguments usually come to Mary last; that is what I have read from many of the former evangelicals; my friend Rod Bennett said the same thing. That one is the hardest; but it is dealt with once one accepts the other first principles first; that there is an infallible church, with an infallible Pope; that actually was started through Peter and continued all through history organizationally and spiritually and that chrism or anointing was passed down through the succession of bishops and that is God's vehicle of guidance here on earth; and gives us the living voice through which we can know which of all the interpretations is right. Once one accepts those claims, then, I guess, it is not hard to then add Mary on.
In history, most people were just following the culture and traditions without questioning; the masses, it seems. The intellectuals satisfied their minds by the arguments of John Damascene and Aquinas, etc.
Those beliefs and doctrines seem to go against the Bible
"Seem to go against the bible" ??? Either you are coming around Ken, or this is just a slip!
I have to ask you again, then:
"So what evidence can you give me that would allow me to accept that what you say and think is biblical, is actually what God says and thinks is biblical?
" I respectfully demand of you...why should this Greek illiterate trust your interpretation of scripture over that of our Early Church Fathers? Give evidence that you are sent from God and that He has decreed that I should listen to you?"
Peter,
You are certainly tenacious in your demand.
You will have to just study the canonical Scriptures (without Apocrypha) for yourself and pray and put aside any other prayers to Mary or dead saints for a while.
try studying and reading some good Reformed websites:
www.desiringgod.org
Read and listen to John Piper's sermons.
or R. C. Sproul:
www.renewingyourmind.org
or
www.monergism.org
Lots of links, church history, bible studies, sermons.
I have no miracles or other external "signs" that you are demanding. I am not a RC bishop, so you don't accept any one not in that line of apostolic succession anyway, etc.
seem
Just trying to be humble here. I am not infallible; but I am convinced that the Reformed position is the right position.
http://www.monergism.com/
Oopps; it should have been www.monergism.com
not
.org
You will have to just study the canonical Scriptures (without Apocrypha) for yourself and pray and put aside any other prayers to Mary or dead saints for a while.
Been there, done that and ended up Catholic.
By the way, by what authority do you tell me to avoid the apocrypha?
I have no miracles or other external "signs" that you are demanding.
I was not demanding miracles, just evidence as to what authority sent you to tell me how I had to interpret the scriptures. Ken, if you came to my lowly village after the council of Jerusalem and told me, by using sophisticated scriptural arguments, that I had to be circumsized, I would have demanded of you to show me by whose authority you were sent to tell me this and if it wasn't authority from the recognizable Church authorities I would have dismissed your teaching with peace of mind. If you came to my village after the Council of Nicaea and explained to me, by using sophisticated arguements from scripture that Christ did not have two natures, I would have demanded of you to demontrate to me by whose authority you were sent ot teach me this. If you were not sent by the recognizable Church authorities I would have dismissed your teaching with peace of mind. If you came to my hamlet in Germany and used sophisticated arguements from scripture teaching Sola Scriputra etc, I would have demanded of you to demonstrate by whose authority are you coming to teach me this? If you were not sent from the recogizabkle Church authorities, I would have dismissed your teaching with peace of mind.
Christ saw this confusion coming and he left me with a physically identifiable Church which possesses authority in His name. He gave this Church a mandate to teach the nations and left the Holy Spirit with Her to guide Her to all truth. It is physically obvious to me that you do not belong to this Church and She definitely did not send you with Her authority to teach therfore I can dismiss what you teach (when it is in oposition to what the recognizable Church authoities teach) with peace of mind.
Christ had to set things up like this. It was wise and prudent of Him to do it. It soothes this scenario:
“We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they say."
I am not infallible;
I know, that is why I don't trust your interpretation of scriputre.
Matt, Thanks for the link! I have been a little busy to participate in this discussion for the last couple of days.
~Paul
Hi Ken,
In response to your comment of 12.17.07 @ 9:59 am, you suggested that my belief in Mary as a dispenser of grace to be a stumbling block. The fact of the matter is I believe that God gives us all kinds of ways that He chooses to dispense His grace to us. Through Mary and the saints, through family and friends, my interactions with fellow Christians like you, not to mention the opportunities God gives me to witness to others everyday, are all occasions where God dispenses His grace.
What your problem is that you are suffering from sort of spiritual myopia. You see the Cause of all graces but deny the instrumentalities by which He chooses to dispense them. That's why I have no problem with Marian doctrines, praying to saints, the medicinal purification of Purgatory and the sublime sacrifice of the Mass because I believe they are all part of the means God uses to dispense His grace to us. They are a source of strength to me. As St. Paul said, "I can do all things in Him who strengthens me." (Phil. 4:13) Mary, the Mass, the intercession of saints, etc. are all ways that God provides me strength to keep carrying the cross Christ gave me to shoulder.
It appears that you think that the Catholic Church says that you have to do A.B.C., etc in order to get into heaven, sort of like a pie recipe or an instruction manual to put a bike together, but the truth is that the Catholic Church teaches that people should do A.B.C. because God gave us these things to use to help us get into heaven. The definition of grace is a GIFT freely given by God. In my view, this is a bit truncated. Mary, the saints, the Mass, the sacraments, etc. are how one may find the GIFT of grace to be wrapped.
I hope this makes my thoughts on the subject clear. God bless!
Peter wrote:
"Ken, if you came to my lowly village after the council of Jerusalem and told me, by using sophisticated scriptural arguments, that I had to be circumsized, I would have demanded of you to show me by whose authority you were sent to tell me this and if it wasn't authority from the recognizable Church authorities I would have dismissed your teaching with peace of mind."
I agree with this; with the council of Jerusalem and Galatians; so it is a bad illustration, because Acts 15 and Galatians teaches that, that to add circumcision to faith as a condition for salvation is wrong; so the authority would be at that time from the apostles. Yes, they were a "living voice" until the Scriptures were written down.
It is your RCC that requires other things added onto repentance and faith in Christ for salvation -- baptism, prayers to Mary, alms giving, etc. what authority did they have to go against Acts 15 and Galatians?
Peter wrote:
"If you came to my village after the Council of Nicaea and explained to me, by using sophisticated arguements from scripture that Christ did not have two natures,
Problem with this is that Nicea and Athanasius used Scripture to back up their arguments and the authority of Nicea is a secondary derived authority from Scripture. John 1:1-5 and 1:14 clearly taught that the Word was eternal in the past and became flesh in time; so the Arians were wrong. Athanasius wrote, "Vainly do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things . . . " De Synodis 6
When we speak and quote the Scriptures, they are our authority. Billy Graham's way of saying it was always, "The Bible says". That is our authority. It is up to you and your will and will to be convinced and choose.
Have a Merry and Blessed Christmas!
Paul Hoffer wrote:
"Mary, the Mass, the intercession of saints, etc. are all ways that God provides me strength to keep carrying the cross Christ gave me to shoulder."
How do you know for sure that God actually gave those as channels of grace when they are no where mentioned in the canonical Scriptures, especially in the passages that deal with grace and faith?
Galatians 2:16
Galatians 2:21
Romans 4:1-16
Romans 10:9-10
Romans 9:11-16
Romans 11:6
Ephesians 2:1-10
For it is by grace you have been saved through faith . . . "
John 1:12-13; 3:16, 3:18, 5:24; 8:24, 6:29; 6:35-40; 11:25-27
Acts 16:31
I Timothy 2:5-6
There is only one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ . . .
I understand that you sincerely trust those things from your authority and that you explain them as channels and means of grace; but they are just not in the canonical Scriptures, that is why it raises lots of doubt and questions as to why God did not put them in the Scriptures if He intended for them to be channels of grace, etc. They are adding to the Scriptures and corrupting the pure gospel message.
Merry Christmas to you also!
Ken, you wrote pertaining to Mary, the Mass, etc. that they are adding to the Scriptures and corrupting the pure gospel message. How does that corrupt that message? Scripture records that Mary is full of grace. Further, Christ commanded that we celebrate the Eucharist. Why if it is not to obtain His Grace? St. Paul tells us to pray for one another. When you pray for a member of your flock, are you not asking God to dispense His grace on them? We believe that saints keep doing that for us after they are in heaven. Further, if I pray for you or you pray for me, are we not acting as intercessors with God for someone besides ourselves?
These things do not add to the Gospel, they are merely some means by which God has chosen to transmit that message to us.
I hope you and your family have a blessed Christmas as well. I will keep you in my prayers.
Anti-Catholic fundies don't believe Catholics are Christians. Ken as far as I know believes Catholics are Christians. So it is out of bounds to call him anti-Catholic.
Granted I still think the arguments I've seen here from him are stupid......but he is not anti-Catholic.
Don't care if he uses arguments James White uses. I still use some argument penned by Bob Sungenis & today he is about as useful to Catholics as teats on a bull.
Ken is contra-Catholic. I have spoken all hail me!!
Merry Christmas.
God Bless!
England forever!
SCOTLAND A DAY LONGER!!!!
BTW Ken.
St. Irenaeus DID NOT teach Jesus was 50 when he was crucified. That is a lazy misreading which traces itself to James White.
Deal with it & Merry Christmas.
BTW to put to death this stupid claim Irenaeus taught Jesus was more than 50 years old when he was crucified, that Ken has cribbed from James White I am providing a link to an article that refutes this claim.
http://www.tektonics.org/guest/i...est/
irey50.html
Oh BTW I think I should mention here the guy who wrote the article is an Evangelical Protestant who attends a Southern Baptist Church! Roman free Zone!
It seems SKEPTICS have picked up on Irenaeus' alleged "mistake" & have used THAT as part of an argument that the Gospels are not historically reliable nor should Irenaeus be trusted on the authorship of the Gospel of Mathew.
Which goes to show how anti-Catholics like White will go so far as to shoot Christianity & Biblical Innerancy in the foot just to GET Catholicism!
Sad really. But it's a moot point Irenaeus DID NOT teach Jesus was more than 50 years old when crucified. But don't take my Romanist word for it. Listen to the Prot guy! Enjoy the article.
Did you read the whole article?
He refutes skepticism, (doubting the Bible and Matthew as the author and Irenaeus' others great material that Protestants agree with; against Gnosticism and for historical Christianity and reliability of the gospels); but he agrees that Irenaeus got it wrong on this and proves that was not a true tradition from the apostles, but Irenaeus used the data and promoted what he talked about -- recapitulation -- in order to fight the Gnostic heresy.
This guy has avoided what Henry Newman said would happen when you study the fathers and history; Newman said you would either become a skeptic, or apostate (loose your faith) or become a Roman Catholic, he said there was no middle ground. (Protestantism)
I wish I could find that exact quote; I read it at the Newman Reader website, but cannot find it again.
Here is two paragraphs:
"But back to more general themes, held by people of a more sane disposition, the following can be said. First, as regards those who wish to explain away what Irenaeus says on this issue, and try to make it sound as though Irenaeus in fact actually taught Jesus to have been thirty three when he died, it can be claimed with certainty that the evidence strongly leans against this notion. At both the explicit and implicit levels, all the evidence seems unavoidable that Irenaeus indeed did believe that Jesus was in his mid to upper forties when he died. If it is the case that Irenaeus believed otherwise, we can honestly claim that there is no evidence in his extant writings that this is so."
But I think the most important issue here is the validity of "tradition" in general. As at one end of the spectrum we have those who wish to (for the sake of "salvaging tradition") act as though Irenaeus presents no problem whatever here, there are those at the other end who like to use this as a prooftext which, presumably, invalidates all claims to the authoritative value of "tradition" whatever. And whereas the former read the text until they get what they want out of it (i.e., "proof" that Irenaeus didn't really mean what is perfectly clear in his writings), the anti-traditionalists can be charged with reading the text "too lightly". This was, in fact, a large part of Bud's error. As argued above, there is no evidence whatever that Irenaeus was actually giving testimony to an actual and explicit Church tradition; rather, it seems he was using the data of tradition and subverting it to a theological motif for polemical purposes contra heretics. In other words, tradition itself is absolutely unscathed by Irenaeus claims here; rather, what we have is evidence of Irenaeus himself making a few marginal wrong turns in his attempt to "connect the dots". And as there is no evidence of anyone either before or after Irenaeus claiming the same as regards the age of Christ, there is no warrant whatever for calling this a "tradition" in any sense.
Problem with this is that Nicea and Athanasius used Scripture to back up their arguments and the authority of Nicea is a secondary derived authority from Scripture. John 1:1-5 and 1:14 clearly taught that the Word was eternal in the past and became flesh in time; so the Arians were wrong. Athanasius wrote, "Vainly do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things . . . " De Synodis 6
At the council.the Arians were quoting scripture right back at the Catholics and had their own interpretation of it. It was obvious that appealing to scripture alone was not going to solve the problem of what the" man in the pew" was to believe. Scripture alone was insufficient to protect the true faith. If you, Ken, had happened to think that the Arian interpretation was the correct one, would you have submitted to the decree of the council who disagreed with your interpretation?
I agree with St Athanasius when he says, "For this synod of Nicea is in truth a proscription of every heresy."
Athatnasius talks about how the Arians were interpreting scripture to suit their needs and described how the Fathers decided upon the term homoousion in order that the Arians could not misinterpret the crede as they were misinterpreting scripture.
I meant to comment on this phrase:
John 1:1-5 and 1:14 clearly taught...
All I want to say is "You've got to be kidding, Ken! If it was so clear, then why were so many people misinterpreting it?
Peter,
that is like saying, "why did so many people in Germany in the 1930s-1945 follow Hitler?"
and
Why did so many people like and still like Bill Clinton?
And
Why do so many people like and follow Joel Osteen and Kenneth Copeland and Creflo Dollar and Benny Hinn and Joyce Meyer?
The following of the masses does not prove anything.
> Did you read the whole article?
Yes I did. Carefully & I loved it. BTW FYI I personally NEVER believed Jesus was 33 when he died. I learned as early as 6th grade that Jesus was likely born between 7 B.C. & 4 B.C.
So he could have been as old as 40 when he died. It seems beyond dispute he was executed in 33 AD but nobody believes he was actually born in 1 A.D.
Go re-read the article. It says the Gospel of John says Jesus did ministry for 3 years but it did not say "3 years & 3 years only".
Many Catholic historians have come to this conclusion independantly that Jesus was older than 33 when he died. Though the popular belief held by Catholics, Protestant & EO was often assumed it was never an important belief or a defined dogma.
Nor is it an excuse to ignore the profoundly CATHOLIC & ancient nature of Irenaeus' testamony & try to undermine him because it's a little too inconvent to those who hold the myth Protestantism is in anyway ancient & not a novelty of the 16 century.