I know this isn't on topic, but I was curious if you caught Gerry Matatics this weekend? I went to his Ann Arbor presentation. It was interesting for me. As I mentioned on James White's webcast a week ago I can't help but respect him for his dedication to his cause. He doesn't appear to be making lots of money doing this, but he's ready to buy books for people and everything else just because the message is that important to him.
I asked him a few questions. First I asked him if he was guilty of the same private interpretation that he accuses Protestants of, except he privately interprets more documents.
His response was pretty good, even though I couldn't agree with it. He says Scripture tells us that it can easily be twisted for your own destruction if privately interpreted, however magesterial documents are different. They are intended to illuminate Scripture. These can be privately interpreted. If you can't privately interpret these, then what good are they? That's what their for. Furthermore these documents tell us we should privately interpret them and recognize things like apostasized leadership if it comes to that.
He used Scriptural "types" to show that the Scriptures indicate that a latter day apostasy would occur. For instance, when Jesus was entombed he wasn't visible to those outside the tomb. The body of Christ (i.e. the church) wasn't visible. In the same way the body of Christ is not visible, but will be when God brings things to an end. He talked about at the time of Noah only 8 people were holy amongst all of the living. In the same way today we have only a small remnant. He talked about how Jesus had said in the last days things will be so bad God would cut things short, because if he didn't even the elect wouldn't be spared (if that were possible). So Scripture expected these things.
My question to him on this subject was whether he thought he should be concerned about using "types" as justification for his view. Types are kind of a wax nose that can be made to make Scripture say anything. Muslims use them. Mormons use them. These things can go in any direction.
He replied that he wouldn't use them as part of an argument to convince someone, but looking at the evidence and recognizing an apostasy, he thinks it is useful to look at the Scriptures and look for these things. He finds the ones I mentioned and others and just thinks he's seeing a prediction. I said that I thought an inspired writer would be trustworthy if he made such a connection, but a laymen couldn't have confidence in his own ability. He replied that he thought Paul's example of using types is really intended to be as an model to us, not just one of those things that he as an inspired writer could do, but we couldn't.
I did tell him I was a skeptic after the talk as we shook hands. We bantered a little about it, but nothing major. All in all it was an interesting presentation, and my respect for him remains high.
Don't be fooled by matatics, If you want to Know what has happened to him, go and Read St. John Cassians conferences
But if the official documents are "infallible" then how can you interpret them "privately" against the magisterium? Seems contradictory to me; but the fact that there is this "sedavacantism" and "society of Pope Pius XII" and traditionalism and the other RCC shows the internal contradictions to your whole system. Matatics takes his view consistently; and you guys take your RCC as infallible consistently even though Vatican II and "Muslims adore the same God as we do" and "atheists can be saved" is completely contradictory to the history of RCC and its classic understanding of "no salvation outside the church".
What are St. John Cassian's conferences?
Are you talking about the real historical figure in 500s AD? or some modern conference in his honor?
"I know this isn't on topic, . . ."
Please move unrelated discussions to the Open Forum. That's why I provide that opportunity. Thanks.
Back to the topic of the early church fathers --
Catholic yes, but Roman Catholic no.
http://aomin.org/index.php?itemi...mid=138&
catid=7
Article shows that Irenaeus got the first claim of an "oral tradition" from an apostle wrong. Only 2 steps removed from the apostles. John - Polycarp- Irenaeus. Shows that the early church very early got some things wrong. That is why there is always the need to back to Scripture to see what the apostles taught.
Irenaeus is for the most part, very good and Protestants agree with most of his stuff. But some of his stuff is just wrong; and some is open to interpretation; and some is wrongly used by the RCC apologists to support their position.
All Roman Catholic distinctives (contra Protestantism) are later developments, and additions and corruptions to the apostolic message.
Just because the word "catholic" was used by Ignatius and onward, does not say anything. Protestants are catholic with a little c, because it meant "universal" and against the heresies such as Gnosticism, Novatianism, Sabellianism, Arianism, etc.
James White points out that the very first "oral tradition" that is not in Scripture is a corrupt one -- that Irenaeus thought Jesus was 50 years old.
Against Heresies, Book 2, chapters 20, 21, 22, especially 22, sections 2, 3, 4, 5.
Listen to his Dividing Line from Oct 4. After analyzing Steve Ray's "World Premier of the Early Church Fathers", he provides historical evidence that they sometimes got things wrong.
So Ken, if Irenaeus is so incompetent when he transmits supposed apostolic traditions, how can we ever have any confidence that he and other early church fathers properly communicated which books were in fact written by the apostles? I think it is Irenaeus that first mentions the 4 gospels as a group, saying that these are the only legitamate ones. So you're all the way out to the year 180 and you finally get a reference to the 4 gospels, which is a key reference for anyone trying to establish the authenticity of these texts, and yet you're saying we can't trust this guy. Well then, how do you establish the authenticity of these things?
he provides historical evidence that they sometimes got things wrong.
Who denies this? I stated as much in my Introduction. I've written tons about the Fathers' non-acceptance of sola Scriptura. That documentation will be made available in this book, in a very lengthy chapter (the longest one).
Article shows that Irenaeus got the first claim of an "oral tradition" from an apostle wrong. Only 2 steps removed from the apostles. John - Polycarp- Irenaeus. Shows that the early church very early got some things wrong. That is why there is always the need to back to Scripture to see what the apostles taught.
Yes, and it also shows that the Tradition could correct itself when people got the Tradition wrong. Irenaeus made a mistake, but the collective witness of the Church sufficed to point out his error.
What's ironic is that you seem to think that we have blind faith in Tradition (we don't), while you are actually the one with blind faith in Scripture, believing it for no apparent reason. I guess it's too much to hope for people who treat religion as a completely irrational matter that they will treat other people reasonably, but it does get old. It's like listening to a psychic or an astrologer. You might as well be saying that Scripture has a magical energy called "theopneustos" for all the sense you are making.
Man, even the atheist gets it! It's not much of a testimony to the intellectual coherence of one's Christian tradition when even atheism makes more sense.
Here is where Protestant arguments collapse in regards to whether the Early Church Fathers were Catholic or Protestant:
The Catholic Church teaches that any of the canonized ECFs were never guilty of holding onto heretical doctrine. They can get other things (eg historical dates) wrong however. In regards to issues of salvation, if the ECFs were preaching the Protestant understanding of Justification by imputed righteousness then that ECF would be holding to grave doctrinal error.
Now is where the problem for protestants comes in, on matters regarding key doctrines (eg Faith Alone), the ECFs do NOT agree with them, THUS that ECF cannot be seen as a good Christian who simply got some facts wrong, BUT RATHER nothing short of a heretic. They cannot admit to have outright heretics in their ranks, so they must down grade the ECFs into an essentially worthless 3rd rank status (and only use them when debating LDS or JWs).
This has always been my take on things.
I have noticed Dave uses the same line of thinking when talking about how if people like White were to lay down what he truly believes are the parameters of "orthodoxy" then White would have to admit most non-Calvinist Protestant denominations are not Christian.
I'd be interested in knowing if anyone in the first thousand years of Christianity held to a belief that in any way resembles Sola Fide; and if so what, if any, was the reaction to it.
Man, even the atheist gets it! It's not much of a testimony to the intellectual coherence of one's Christian tradition when even atheism makes more sense.
LOL perhaps this supports Newman's oft-condemned saying that the choices in the end really boil down to Catholicism or atheism?
Hi Richard,
According to Alister McGrath and Norman Geisler, they did not. I cited both in this paper:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
2...legitimate.html
Somewhere I cited Philip Schaff too, writing that if anyone is looking for a Protestant view of justification in the Fathers, they'll be sorely disappointed. I'll find it eventually and it'll end up (with the two above) in this book about the Fathers and Catholicism.
Thanks Dave.
I must be getting old because now I remember that you posted this before.
The quotes about Sola Fide from McGrath, Geisler, and even Schaff are very nuanced. (especially McGrath's) But, in your opinion, why would they or anyone else continue to be protestant if they don't think Sole Fide was in the church at all until the Reformation and Luther and Calvin?
What is their reasoning?
I don't get the point about the atheist that Jonathan Prejean makes in reference to faith in the Scriptures.
Jonathan Prejean --
I understand (from your point of view) what you are saying about "blind acceptance of the Scriptures" vs. "Blind acceptance of Tradition". We have the same basis that you have, historical evidence and reliability, etc. Internal evidence; the quality of being apostolic, etc. But we don't say the church "makes it so" or "creates it as such", only that it is historically testable as reliable testimony. The other RCC distinctives are not.
Easy to test and see that Irenaeus was right on the four gospels, but wrong on Jesus' age as 50. Just as it is easy to see that the Perpetual Virginity doctrine came from Gnosticism and was not in the earliest church fathers, and is contradictory to Matthew 1:18-25. Easy to see that Scripture trumps these false traditions. Easy to see and use brains to see that Transubstantiation, Immaculate Conception, Infalliblity of Pope, and bodily Assumption of Mary are false and unbiblical doctrines and unhistorical. To be deep in history is to reject those doctrines.
The point was that if Irenaeus could get that tradition wrong; and it was so early; they could get other things wrong; like neglecting the Scriptural passages on justification by faith in Galatians and Romans.
But you have no scripture for your distinctives. Ours are in the Scriptures, but were neglected and overshadowed by other things later. Yours are nonexistent, but later created and developed into doctrines and dogmas.
Clement seems to have taught it and Mathates, though admittedly, not developed or expounded upon in detail.
Ken said:
"why would they or anyone else continue to be protestant if they don't think Sole Fide was in the church at all until the Reformation and Luther and Calvin?"
They do so precisely because of Sola Scriptura. With SS history and the ECFs take a back seat, a distant second if anything. That is why many Protestants have no problem when history or the ECFs go against them. SS is almost arrogant in how it says "everyone before me got it wrong, but I, here and now, can read the clear teachings and I have it right".
Easy to test and see that Irenaeus was right on the four gospels, but wrong on Jesus' age as 50. Just as it is easy to see that the Perpetual Virginity doctrine came from Gnosticism and was not in the earliest church fathers, and is contradictory to Matthew 1:18-25.
Ken,
Setting aside your interpretation of Matthew 1: 18-25; explain how it's easy to see that the ECF's got it right on the four Gospels and wrong on the age of Jesus.
*correction*
ECF's = Irenaeus
sorry
So Ken, if Irenaeus is so incompetent when he transmits supposed apostolic traditions,
(those are your words, "incompetent", etc. Irenaeus is part of our tradition also; we accept him for what he is; warts and all the good stuff too. Do you admit he got that supposed oral tradition wrong? Do you admit that it is the first clear claim of an oral tradtition passed down only by verbal testimony? Do you admit it is a corruption? You must; your RCC magisterium agrees that it was wrong and corrupt. This shows that oral traditions can be really really wrong and really really early.)
how can we ever have any confidence that he and other early church fathers properly communicated which books were in fact written by the apostles?
That is just not a big problem; the many witnesses to the 4 gospels against the Gnostics is pretty much a "unanimous consent"; and the internal supernatural quality of the books as God -breathed testify of their power and source and that they are the Word of God. (contra JPrejean's pejorative against Spiritual power and truth and supernatural qualities. To those who are spiritual, born again, Paul says they have discernment -- I Cor. 2:14. The spiritual person discerns all things.)
I think it is Irenaeus that first mentions the 4 gospels as a group, saying that these are the only legitamate ones. So you're all the way out to the year 180 and you finally get a reference to the 4 gospels, which is a key reference for anyone trying to establish the authenticity of these texts, and yet you're saying we can't trust this guy. Well then, how do you establish the authenticity of these things?
(see above) The principle of the historical early church that RCC looks to the early fathers as witnesses is a good general principle and we also rely upon them. But they are not infallible, as you admit; and there claims and interpretations must be tested by Scripture itself. We are able to discern what is right and what is wrong. The problem with RCC is that they trusted in traditions and doctrines that are not in the Scriptures at all and they developed over more and more centuries and it is just too embarrassing and too devastating to admit your mistakes, for the infallibility claim would crumble if you dare admit you made a mistake. It is pride and arrogance and conceit.
Dave wrote:
"Who denies this? (that ECF got some things wrong) I stated as much in my Introduction."
The problem is that you don't see the seriousness of Irenaeus' mistake
and
2. That it is the first instance of a supposed verbal tradition
3. And the first one recorded that we have extant is corrupt
4. Therefore, you should admit that is was easy for the EC to go off on some things very early.
5. And just because someone knew Polycarp, who knew John, does not guarantee that everything they report will be right or infallible.
6. He also has another contradiction, one place he says John lived up until Domitian's time and other time he writes that John lived up until Trajan's time.
7. He also said that the Scriptures are firm; and it is the Gnostics who rely upon oral tradition sources. vive voce = living voice (Against Heresies, 2:28:8; 1:8:1; 3:2:1; 3:3:1) Which is what RCC does. Irenaeus actually rebukes this aspect of modern RCC. To be deep in history is to cease to make Newman and RCC weak arguments.
Dave,
McGrath also points out that Augustine's understanding of justification was based upon the Latin word, iustificare, which meant "to make just", "to make righteous". ficare = to make, manufacture.
But the Greek word, "dikainsoune" is "to declare righteous" or "announce not guilty".
The big problem was relying upon a translation, Latin, and not the original languages themselves.
You will likely respond with, "why did the Greek fathers not mention this?" I wish I could study that question more deeply; it would be interesting. It seems that they have emphasized "theosis" (becoming like God) so much, that they neglected meditating upon Romans 3, 4, 5 and Galatians passages on justification.
I read your article on justification and Geisler and McGrath quotes. I have Geisler's book, but I could not find where in his reference to City of God 10, 8 -- I could not find anywhere there where Augustine actually says a person may be regenerate but fail to persevere. Either Geisler has made a mistake in his reference/footnote; or he is interpreting Augustine in his own words; but it never says that.
Setting aside your interpretation of Matthew 1: 18-25; explain how it's easy to see that the ECF's got it right on the four Gospels and wrong on the age of Jesus.
The same way it is easy for any truly born again spiritual person to see -- I Cor. 2:14. If you read them and meditate upon them; not just blindly accepting what a priest says. The same reason that the Gnostic gospels lost and the 4 truly inspired ones won; the Gnostics deserved to loose because of their internal bad and false and lying quality. Even you can agree that Irenaeus got it right and the others did against the Gnostics; and yet even you will admit that Irenaeus got it wrong on Jesus' age; even without a council or priest to tell you which one is right or wrong. You also can see this if you study and read and meditate and look at history.
"They do so precisely because of Sola Scriptura."
Do you admit that it is better to study the original Hebrew and Greek than to rely upon a Latin translation for exegesis and deep theological reflection?
Do you admit that Augustine was wrong on "justification"; that is means "declare righteous" over "make righteous"?
Do you admit that the Greek metanoia is "repentance" and not "do penance"? Even Erasmus and all scholars admit this.
These are just a few reasons why Sola Scriptura is the final court of decision to determine what was right and what was a mistake in historical development of doctrine and theology.
In citing I Cor. 2:14, I should have included verse 15,
"But he who is spiritual discerns all things, . . ."
Context, verses 1-6, 10-13, 16. "we have the mind of Christ". "we speak a wisdom among those who are mature", "the Spirit searches all things even the depths of God."
>Do you admit that it is better to study the original Hebrew and Greek than to rely upon a Latin translation for exegesis and deep theological reflection?
What does the language matter if the Hebrew Text is not as old as a Greek text? The Masoretic Text on which many Prot bibles are based is from after the 10th century AD. The Septuagen is pre-first century. The Dead Sea Hebrew texts are more in line the Septuagent.
>Do you admit that Augustine was wrong on "justification"; that is means "declare righteous" over "make righteous"?
You are assuming Augustine DIDN'T believe if God delared something so he didn't by declaring it MAKE IT SO. Legal fiction & all that.
>Do you admit that the Greek metanoia is "repentance" and not "do penance"? Even Erasmus and all scholars admit this.
Faith without works is dead. Repentence & penance cannot be seperated.
>These are just a few reasons why Sola Scriptura is the final court of decision to determine what was right and what was a mistake in historical development of doctrine and theology.
If anything it shows the A-historic nature of it & how dependant Prots are on the extra-biblical traditions of Men & assumption of the so called "reformers".
>Easy to test and see that Irenaeus was right on the four gospels, but wrong on Jesus' age as 50.
Actually if you read the text(like I did) Irenaeus wasn't so much trying to say Jesus was 50 when he was crusified but rather he was trying to argue Jesus was older than 30 when he was crusified. The Gnostics said Jesus MUSt have been 30 (not 33) when he was crusified since there are 30 Archons in Gnostic mythology so Ireneaus spills a lot of useless ink trying to refute the idea Jesus was only thirty & in the course of event presents arguments he could have been 40 or 50 anything older than 30.
Ireneaus was a great Church Father who provide many strong historic proofs of the Catholicity of the ancient Church but he was a horrible writter.
You are assuming Augustine DIDN'T believe if God delared something so he didn't by declaring it MAKE IT SO. Legal fiction & all that.
the order is important. God first accepts us, forgives, justifies us, by faith alone. Then He begins the process of growth and holiness and conformity to Christ. Just like a parent; when love and relationship and acceptance are first; behavior change, honor, obedience comes from that foundation. Yours puts the order wrong -- "I will not accept you finally until you perform perfectly for me." That is what RCC has in common with all religions. It is not Biblical.
God also makes us righteous, holy, sanctifies us; (so there is no legal fiction charge that you bring) but that is the process and result of being truly justified by faith alone; Christ's righteousness is the only righteousness that clothes us to be the basis by which we can stand before God; but we are changed and holy also. I John 3:2 "When He appears, we shall be like Him. " Philippians 3:20- 21 "He will conform our mortal bodies into conformity to His glorious body." Those who are justified are also glorified" Romans 8:29-30
What does the language matter if the Hebrew Text is not as old as a Greek text? The Masoretic Text on which many Prot bibles are based is from after the 10th century AD. The Septuagen is pre-first century. The Dead Sea Hebrew texts are more in line the Septuagent.
In order that argument to have any weight, you have to show specific verses that the LXX teaches a RCC understanding of justification vs. a Masoretic text that teaches a Protestant understanding of justification. Are you saying that the LXX of Genesis 15:6 and Habakkuk 2:4 are different than the Masoretic text?
Beckwith comments on justification in the ECF's here:
http://www.ignatius.com/Magazine...R/
beckwith.html
I read portions of a book by my friends Norm Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences. It is a fair-minded book. But some of the points that Norm and Ralph made really shook me up and were instrumental in facilitating my return to the Church. For example, in their section on salvation, they write: "Although the forensic aspect of justification stressed by Reformation theology is scarcely found prior to the Reformation, there is continuity between medieval Catholicism and the Reformers." Then when I read the Fathers, those closest to the Apostles, the Reformation doctrine was just not there. To be sure, salvation by grace was there. To be sure, the necessity of faith was there. And to be sure, works righteousness apart from God's grace was decried. But what was present was a profound understanding of how saving faith was not a singular event that took place "on a Wednesday," to quote a famous Gospel song, but that it was the grace of God working through me as I acquiesced to God's spirit to allow his grace to shape and mold my character so that I may be conformed to the image of Christ. I also found it in the Catechism.
Ken, you mentioned the "many witnesses to the gospels against the gnostics." Can you get a little more specific? Do you have quotes?
In pointing out the unreliability of Irenaeus you basically eliminate from the realm of reliable evidence your very earliest reference to the 4 gospels as a group. It seems to me that you are sawing off the limb you stand on.
It's just interesting to me that Protestants talk about how gullible and unreliable the early church fathers are when they speak with Catholics, but when they speak with skeptics, suddenly we're supposed to accept everything that these fathers say on their mere word. Jason Engwer, for instance, argues extensively for their reliability. See here as just one example:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2...el-of-
john.html
But Engwer, like you, is no big fan of RC-ism. So when speaking with Catholics he'll start to talk about how we can't trust these people, since Scripture itself tells us that men would arise even amongst the first converts leading people astray.
But if Irenaeus is so great, and so trustworthy as a man that knows Polycarp, who in turn knows the apostle John, then why not also take him at his word when he says:
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized AT ROME by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. FOR WITH THIS CHURCH, BECAUSE OF ITS SUPERIOR ORIGIN ALL CHURCHES MUST AGREE, THAT IS, ALL THE FAITHFUL IN THE WHOLE WORLD; AND IT IS IN HER THAT THE FAITHFUL EVERYWHERE HAVE MAINTAINED THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION." [then follows a list of successors to Peter as bishops of Rome] (Against Heresies 3:3:1-3)
That's quoted via:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologeti...ogetics/
a87.htm
Ken's comments in quotes:
"The big problem was relying upon a translation, Latin, and not the original languages themselves."
Not at all. The issue here is whether justification involves an inward change or not, Catholics (and ECFs) say Yes. There are clear passages that show Justification clearly involves the person being made and declared righteous (eg Titus 3:4-7). Also, Augustine was WELL AWARE what St Paul had to say, I dare you to read his writing "On the Spirit and the Letter" and you will be stunned at his insight.
"It seems that they have emphasized "theosis" (becoming like God) so much, that they neglected meditating upon Romans 3, 4, 5 and Galatians passages on justification."
And here you prove my point regarding SS which basically says "I dont care that nobody before me got it right, the Scriptures clearly teach it". The Protestant problem is the put the wrong emphasis on those chapters (with the wrong INTERPRETATION of them as well).
"I could not find anywhere there where Augustine actually says a person may be regenerate but fail to persevere"
I have not read City of God, but I have read multiple times in St Augustine's work where he mentions failure to persevere after regeneration/justification. One explicit example that comes to mind is in his book "On the Perseverance of the Saints" chapter 21.
"Do you admit that it is better...original Hebrew and Greek...for exegesis?"
It is always a benefit to have the original languages. That being said I believe the Bible is clear enough that you can get the correct understanding even if you dont know greek. St Augustine was a Bible genius.
"Do you admit that Augustine was wrong on "justification"?"
No because context is always the main determinate of usage. The imputed idea is a total invention and the notion is condemned by Jesus Himself (Mat 23:25f). Augustine was well studied in the Bible and didnt use a Protestant Lexicon to force passages to mean something just because the Protestant Lexicon defined it a certain way.
"Do you admit that the Greek metanoia is "repentance" and not "do penance"?"
This is a sign you are on a dangerous road to misrepresenting the Bible. Repenting and doing penance are interchangeable concepts.
"These are just a few reasons why Sola Scriptura is the final court of decision"
You couldnt be further from the Truth. Sola Scriptura is a smokescreen it deflects off of the REAL ISSUE which is INTERPRETATION. Notice that YOU didnt even realize interpretation played a KEY role in everything you said above. Think about it, you define "justification" based on Lexicons and modern day scholars (with Protestant biases), and you read that back into the Bible and force it to teach concepts like imputed righteousness.
"the order is important"
Yes it is, that is why 1 Cor 6:11 says "sanctified" BEFORE "justified".
Matthew 23:25 had nothing whatsoever to do with justification and imputed righteousness. Jesus is condemning external works religion without an internal change.
The Scripture says that our hearts are changed by faith in Christ, "cleansing their hearts by faith"- Acts 15:9
Matthew 23:25ff does not say anything against the idea that God declares the ungodly righteous by faith.
In pointing out the unreliability of Irenaeus
(how did I say he was totally unreliable? Amazing that you jump to that conclusion! Do you think he was right and Jesus was 40 or 50 years old? Amazing!
The point again is; the very first non-scriptural oral tradition that we have as a claim from John and Polycarp to Irenaeus is a corrupted tradition. This makes your Perpetual virginity, baptismal infant regeneration, transubstantiation, indulgences, purgatory, bodiy assumption of Mary, and the immaculate conception, and co-mediatrix, infallibility of Pope; and Rome as jurisdictional authority over the other churches all pure claims "out of thin air" that they came from the apostles and the original gospel deposit. None of these things came from the apostles.
you basically eliminate from the realm of reliable evidence your very earliest reference to the 4 gospels as a group. It seems to me that you are sawing off the limb you stand on.
No, as I said, many others testify to the four gospels; but it would take me a while to dig up all that; but I will try to do some in a later post.
On the City of God quote by Geisler -- look at book 10, chapter 8 and tell me where Augustine said that.
Perseverance, 21 -- it is debatable what Augustine meant -- for he quotes Ephesians 1:4-5, Romans 8:28-30, and I John 2:19 all in one or two sentences.
Good point on I Cor. 6:11 -- but you will have to admit that the order here is not important, because even RCC confesses that one must excercise faith apart from works, first; (except for the case of infant baptism) then good works follow from faith. Otherwise you do away with "saved by faith, not by works".
Every justified person is also sanctified, and the sanctification process begins when we are first regenerated by the Spirit of God. But the condition or requirement for justification is faith alone apart from the merit of good works of obedience. Good works flow from true faith.
It seems that Paul in I Cor. 6:11 is not trying to teach on the order there, as he does in Ephesians 2:8-10. He is saying that real Christians have been changed; you used to be that way as an identity; now you are a changed person; redeemed, washed, sanctified, justified, etc.
Others that affirm the canonical gospels, or quote or cite them, either all four of them or at least one of them:
Papias (quoted in Eusebius; Gundry, p. 77, Survey of the NT) Justin Martry, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Jerome, Augustine, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem.
Polycarp quoted from Matthew and Mark. Psuedo Barnabas quotes Matthew, Mark and Luke.
Source: Geisler and Nix, p. 294. A General Introduction to the Bible. I think Dave A. has that book.
But what is the point? We can verify this as historical, and that the books of the NT have that "God-breathed" quality is agreed upon by both of us. You are trying to say that the Church had to settle the final struggle over which books were "canon" and which were not, etc.; and therefore, to criticize Irenaeus on one point "cuts your foundation out from under you". Not at all. It makes no sense to this either/or mentality you have; and you even agree that Irenaeus was wrong on that.
As to the famous quote about the Roman church; there is no problem there. One of the letters of Paul was written to the church in Rome. I accept that Peter and Paul were martyred there by Nero. It was a great church. The other believers resorted to it, in that the rest of the empire reflected it and many came from it. He is not arguing for papal supremecy or jurisdictional authority; all Irenaeus is saying is, look at the other churches, they believe in one God and He is creator of all things (not the Gnostic ideas of God and rejection of OT and material and creation, etc.). Irenaeus is just saying all the other churches agree with this belief, "I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, all things. . . ", etc. None of the churches have the Gnostic ideas of God. Rome is one of the apostolic churches. Not a problem at all to protestant faith.
He is not arguing for papal supremecy or jurisdictional authority; all Irenaeus is saying is, look at the other churches, they believe in one God and He is creator of all things (not the Gnostic ideas of God and rejection of OT and material and creation, etc.). Irenaeus is just saying all the other churches agree with this belief, "I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, all things. . . ", etc. None of the churches have the Gnostic ideas of God. Rome is one of the apostolic churches. Not a problem at all to protestant faith.
No, that is NOT all St. Irenaeus is saying. He said that the apostolic succession of bishops in the various churches proves that the Catholic Church is the true church, not the numerous contradictory Gnostic sects. Then he shows the apostolic succession of the Roman Church, because, he says, it would take too long and be superfluous to show the succession of all of the churches. And why does he choose Rome to establish his argument from apostolic succession? Because, he says, all churches are obliged to agree with the Roman Church, due to the Roman Church's preeminence and presidential authority over all other churches. In other words, since Rome is the Prince of all the Churches, he needs only show the apostolic succession of the Roman Bishops in order to show the apostolic succession of all the churches that agree with Rome.
You're going to have to face it, unpleasant though it may be for you, Ken -- St. Irenaeus didn't say those things about any other church: it is Rome that has the preeiminent principality, not Alexandria or Antioch or Ephesus or Corinth or Smyrna.
Are you saying that the LXX of Genesis 15:6 and Habakkuk 2:4 are different than the Masoretic text?
Yes, as a matter of fact, the Masoretic text of Hab. 2:4 is different from the LXX of Hab. 2:4. The New Testament follows the LXX of Hab. 2:4, not the Masoretic, the Hebrew text of which does not mean, "The just shall live by faith."
Ken said:
"Matthew 23:25 had nothing whatsoever to do with justification and imputed righteousness. Jesus is condemning external works religion without an internal change."
It has more to do that you realize for here God repudiates the idea someone could be considered righteous if they are no so internally. Imputed Justification has God knowingly considering someone righteous despite the fact they are the same sinful person inside. I have said this before it is almost like saying God has to lie so He can save you.
"The Scripture says that our hearts are changed by faith in Christ, "cleansing their hearts by faith"- Acts 15:9"
This hurts your position and helps mine. We see infused grace here making the heart clean. I did not notice this verse before.
"Matthew 23:25ff does not say anything against the idea that God declares the ungodly righteous by faith."
It would be hypocritical (and who knows what else) for God to condemn the idea of focusing on outward appearance of righteousness knowing full well the inner parts are filthy.
"Perseverance, 21 -- it is debatable what Augustine meant"
As you know I disagree for St Aug said both men were regenerated and justified but only one persevered. But I dont have the time to get into a debate on this right now.
"Good point on I Cor. 6:11 -- but you will have to admit that the order here is not important,..."
No I dont have to admit the order is unimportant, on the contrary it contradicts your claims explicitly. Who is letting Scripture speak here? This is a perfect example of where SS fails because you cant accept the passage as it stands.
"...because even RCC confesses that one must excercise faith apart from works, first; (except for the case of infant baptism) then good works follow from faith. Otherwise you do away with "saved by faith, not by works"."
This doesnt follow at all because that isnt the issue. The issue is sanctification before justification, being made righteous before being considered righteous as well as adopted as a child of God.
"Every justified person is also sanctified,"
Based on PROTESTANT understandings of those terms I would disagree for Christians can turn to lives of sin. Catholics, as does the Bible, teach that a Christian can lose your sanctification (and as a consequence Justification) if you turn to a life of grave sin. (eg Heb 12:14ff)
"...and the sanctification process begins when we are first regenerated by the Spirit of God."
I would agree. The problem is YOU then switch over to IMPUTATION during the Justification phase...and that is totally unwarranted and illogical. Either the Holy Spirit cause a real change inside your soul or it didnt. If it did then God has no business imputing righteousness when His Spirit already transformed you.
"But the condition or requirement for justification is faith alone apart from the merit of good works of obedience."
The condition for justification is God's g
continued
"But the condition or requirement for justification is faith alone apart from the merit of good works of obedience."
The condition for justification is God's grace. "Good works" in regards to merit are only possible by God's enabling grace.
"Good works flow from true faith."
This is false. Good works are never guaranteed. One third of Paul's writings (eg 1 & 2 Cor, Gal) were spent yelling at Christians who had turned to lives of sin. Other passages are just as clear that good works are not guaranteed (eg 2 Pt 1:9).
"It seems that Paul in I Cor. 6:11 is not trying to teach on the order there, as he does in Ephesians 2:8-10."
That is unwarranted and proves the utter failure of SS. You wont accept the clear teaching of the Scriptures and under the umbrella of SS you dont have to because the individual ultimately decides what is what. Logically if we bother were operating on the SS level here I should have the advantage, though in reality it is a stalemate. The problem with stalemates however is that the Protestant sees no problem here and continues on as if it is no big deal rather than realize that one of us is in serious error.
"He is saying that real Christians have been changed; you used to be that way as an identity; now you are a changed person; redeemed, washed, sanctified, justified, etc."
Nothing you say here changes my point. If anything you drive home my point.
>how did I say he was totally unreliable? Amazing that you jump to that conclusion! Do you think he was right and Jesus was 40 or 50 years old? Amazing!
Clearly Ken you HAVE NOT read the text but are merely parroting James White. It is as plain as the nose on my face. Irenaeus was clearly concerned with underminding the Gnostic belief Jesus was a mere 30 at his crusifiction & was throwing every argument he could to undermine that belief. For him the Tradition of the Church is the guiding principle to tell us about the evens in our Lord's life & not not Gnostic mythology.
>The point again is; the very first non-scriptural oral tradition that we have as a claim from John and Polycarp to Irenaeus is a corrupted tradition.
Clearly you haven't read the text. The "Tradition" Irenaeus was defending was that Jesus (contrary to the gnostics) was older than 30 when he was crusified. Not that he really was 40 or 50.
>This makes your Perpetual virginity, baptismal infant regeneration, transubstantiation, indulgences, purgatory, bodiy assumption of Mary, and the immaculate conception, and co-mediatrix, infallibility of Pope; and Rome as jurisdictional authority over the other churches all pure claims "out of thin air" that they came from the apostles and the original gospel deposit.
Rather it show Catholicism is ancient Christianity & Protestantism is the human Traditions of Luther & Calvin & company
>None of these things came from the apostles.
Clearly they did otherwise you have to reject the "Tradition" of 4 Gospels if you are consistant.
I challenge ANYONE to read the Text of Irenaeus & I mean THE WHOLE ARGUMENT not just cherry picked verses. It will become evident what I say is true & that Irenaeus WASN'T transmiting a tradition that said Jesus was 50 years old when he was crusified.
Commenting by HaloScan
