A Historical Dare to Protestants

[Protestant101]

Nice dance, 101.
Now - can you answer the question? I’ll ask you again:

Can you show me - in the Bible - where it says that the Bible is the final authority?

I eagerly await your reply.

I already gave you a reply; but you don’t like it. Instead of the big “dance” charade; you could give us another Bible answer like your last one.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

You’re clever with fonts and colors, but I don’t think you’ve actually read the history you seek to purport. The claims of Rome to domination over the other historic Patriarchs was never a part of the first 5 centuries of the church, which is among the reasons why it stayed together so well. By the 7th century, Rome was starting to feel its imperial oats (evidenced by the contankerous bouts between Patriarchs) and eventually split when Rome demanded not only complete and total fealty from the other Patriarchs, but assumed the new right of Rome to make adjustments to previous rulings of Ecumenical Councils on their own fiat.

Thus, it was the Roman Patriarch who walked away, in his own hubris, from the other 4 great historic Patriarchs. 4 to 1 sure sounds like the minority was the schismatic… not the majority.

Cheers.

OOPS… wrong quote… was directing that at the other fellow.

The primacy of Peter and the Papacy was accepted in writing by many Eastern Patriarchs in the first five centuries. I don’t know of any direct rejections of the papacy, not that there aren’t any.

What do you make of these quotes?

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria (450)
A native of Antioch, Theodoret ruled under the Antiochean Patriarch.

I therefore beseech your holiness to persuade the most holy and blessed bishop (Pope Leo) to use his Apostolic power, and to order me to hasten to your Council. For that most holy throne (Rome) has the sovereignty over the churches throughout the universe on many grounds. (Theodoret, Tom. iv. Epist. cxvi. Renato, p. 1197).

If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Spirit, hastened to the great Peter, to convey from him the solution to those in Antioch, who were at issue about living under the law, how much more do we, poor and humble, run to the Apostolic Throne (Rome) to receive from you (Pope Leo) healing for wounds of the the Churches. For it pertains to you to have primacy in all things; for your throne is adorned with many prerogatives. (Theodoret Ibid, Epistle Leoni)

**St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387) **

And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren …and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, ‘How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,’ this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world. (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)

**Macedonius, Patriarch of Constantinople (466-516) **

Macedonius declared, when desired by the Emperor Anastasius to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, that ‘such a step without an Ecumenical Synod presided over by the Pope of Rome is impossible.’ (Macedonius, Patr. Graec. 108: 360a (Theophan. Chronogr. pp. 234-346 seq.)

fisheaters.com/easternfathers.html
**
Basil the Great (ca. 330 - January 1, 379),**

“When we hear the name of Peter, that name does not cause our minds to dwell on his substance, but we figure to our minds the properties that are connected with him. For we at once, on hearing that name, think of the son of him that came Bethsaida, Andrew’s brother; him that was called from amongst fishermen unto the ministry of the Apostleship; him who on account of the pre-eminence of his faith received upon himself the building of the Church.” (Adv. Eunom. 4)

"One of these mountains was Peter, upon which rock the Lord promised to build His Church (Comm. in Esai 2,66)

“It seemed to me to be desirable to send a letter to the bishop of Rome, begging him to examine our condition, and since there are difficulties in the way of representatives being sent from the West by a general synodial decree, to advise him (the bishop of Rome) to exercise his personal authority in the matter, choosing suitable persons to sustain the labours of a journey, - suitable, too, by gentleness and firmness of character, to correct the unruly among us here.” (Letter 69 to Anathasius, NPNF2 8:165)

 

[a_burger]

In the Bible we are told that if you deny Christ came in the flesh it is the Spirit of antichrist. There was a gnostic view that Christ was not in the flesh when he died. Jesus is fully God and fully man. In that era everyone knew Jesus was God the Son in the flesh. Certainly if you deny Jesus flesh you are in the spirit of antichrist then if you deny his deity you are also in the spirit of antichrist. The Way denies the Deity of Christ. I know because I went to their meetings for a short time. There is no salvation through a mere man. There is no salvation for the wrong Way.

 

[SD_Catholic]

a) Marcion was the first individual to construct a list of what was canonical for Christianity. Prior to him, there were no lists of books that were canonical for Christianity.

b) All of the books in his Canon, are canonical for all branches (and denominations ) of Contemporary Christianity;

c) If you want to get really picky, one vote is the reason why Gnostic Christianity and Catholic Christianity are no longer congruent;

jonathon

a) his canon was taken from the Inspired books that the Catholics had already collected (while he was Catholic).

b) his canon was NOT the same canon that we now have in the Bible (for starters he only used 1 of 4 Gospels and no OT)… Is this the Bible you use?

You said his canon became our current Bible… that is false and I’m pretty sure you know it… The whole thing on this is that he didn’t come out of no where with these Inspired books that he had collected with his Gnostic followers… He was in the Catholic Church (who already had the writings in their possession) and then excommunicated for spreading lies… How does this lead you to believe that the Gnostics formed our current canon of the Bible.

SD

 

[Benjamin8o8]

a) his canon was taken from the Inspired books that the Catholics had already collected (while he was Catholic).

b) his canon was NOT the same canon that we now have in the Bible (for starters he only used 1 of 4 Gospels and no OT)… Is this the Bible you use?

You said his canon became our current Bible… that is false and I’m pretty sure you know it… The whole thing on this is that he didn’t come out of no where with these Inspired books that he had collected with his Gnostic followers… He was in the Catholic Church (who already had the writings in their possession) and then excommunicated for spreading lies… How does this lead you to believe that the Gnostics formed our current canon of the Bible.

SD

Thank you for defending the Catholic faith brother, I always appreciate when I learn something new and reliable. Thanks

 

[jblake]

SD Catholic;:

a) his canon was taken from the Inspired books that the Catholics had already collected (while he was Catholic).

The collections were things to be studied, not things that were Canonical. There is a huge difference between the two.

his canon was NOT the same canon that we now have in the Bible (for starters he only used 1 of 4 Gospels and no OT)… Is this the Bible you use?

I apologise for your inability to comprehend the plain English that I wrote. As such, I’ll rephrase so that those who do not know English as a first, second, or third language can understand it.

Every book in Marcion’s canon is found in every Canon of the different branches of Contemporary Christianity. Furthermore, Marcion’s cannon was used as the starting point, in constructing a list of what was Canonical. There were no questions about the inclusion of all of the books he deemed to be Canonical, as Canonical.

does this lead you to believe that the Gnostics formed our current canon of the Bible.

The Gnosticism of St Paul. (And if you don’t understand how and why he is Gnostic, then you don’t understand Gnosticism at all. )

Paul was, after all, the spiritual grandfather of Marcion.

jonathon

 

[catholic_daddy]

That’s the very problem I’m talking about. You see the Bible AS YOU KNOW IT. The Protestant down the street sees it as HE knows it and starts a Church with a belief system as HE knows it. Same with the guy accross town and so on and so on and so on.

Pretty soon, you have what we have now - thousands of differing Protestant belief systems. This is not what Jesus wanted and I’ll show you that from scripture.

**On the night before he was crucified, Jesus prayed for the UNITY **of his Church.
John 17:20-23:
***“I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, ***so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.
And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me.”
This is why Jesus refers to his "church" in Matthew. He never speaks of his “churches”.

There is no need to get angry with me - I’m not being judgemental. I’m merely showing you the Catholic position.

Errrrr not so fast. Jesus addresses seven churches in the Revelation and warns that certain things can cause Him to pluck one of them right out of the lampstand! Do you factor those passages into your ecclesiology? Any church, whether in Rome or Atlanta, that does not hold fast to the Word and to its passion can be vomitted right out of Jesus’ mouth. Read it and weep. Some would say that Rome was removed a long time ago.

 

[guanophore]

They’re all dead. But thank God their writings aren’t. All who listen and obey are part of the one true Universal (catholic) Church.

It is erroneous to think that the gifts and the call of God are revocable. The authority He gave to the Apostles they passed on to their disciples, the bishops. This is how Jesus chose that the flock should be kept.

Those to whom we are to listen and obey are those to whom this authority is committed. God’s word is not able to be a final authority, because it lacks qualities needed to wield authority. Making it into something it was never meant to be is a form of idolatry, and causes divisions in the body.

 

[guanophore]

It is interesting to note why the Council had to send those messengers to that city–there were people there who were adding to the simple gospel of grace! That problem continues to this very day

Why are you here? Did you come to CAF just to criticize the Catholic faith? you are clearly very ignorant about Catholicism, and if you were willing to learn, could do that here. However, a mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.

 

[guanophore]

For what purpose?

You just answered this in another post! He reveals His glory.

 What do we need a Bible?

The Apostles and their successors, appointed to shepherd the flock by Jesus, decided that we needed some things to be written. The NT is a Catholic book, written by, for, and about Catholics. It was never intended to be separated from Catholic teaching.

 

[guanophore]

Indeed, and with authority, one has the same trouble of error. Consider when St. Paul had to take St. Peter down a notch for hypocrisy… good thing Paul didn’t bow to Peter’s error, or all the Gentiles would be trying to fulfill the ceremonial laws of Moses into our very day.

Neither authority nor lack of authority is a gaurantee of truth-- only God is Truth. Resting on His divine revelation in the Scriptures is our surest footing.

You are confusing infallibility with impeccability. Even the High Priest was able to make an infallible prophesy about Jesus. Personal corruption does not prevent infallibility.

Peters shortcomings did not prevent him from making infallible statements.

 

[guanophore]

The Catholic view of Predestination seems to be different than what the Bible teaches.

newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm
That is of course if one has an adequate interpreter of what is written on the link above.

I am sure it seems that way to you,l since you embrace a non-
Apostolic view of justification.

I particularly thought this statement by St Augustine quoted in the reference was interesting. "Like St. Paul, Augustine, too, speaks of an election to grace apart from the celestial glory (loc. cit., xix): “Prædestinatio est gratiæ præparatio, gratia vero jam ipsa donatio.” It is evident, however, that this (inadequate)predestination does not exclude the possibility that one chosen to grace, faith, and justification goes nevertheless to hell."

Either Jesus lost one or they were not justified.

No, those who are lost are not lost by Jesus, who is able to keep all. Those who are justified,then lost, are those that do not hold fast to what they have attained, run the race in vain, or are disqualified. This is no fault of God’s.

 

[guanophore]

You mistake the RCC for the Word of God. He uses those with the gift of teaching to help us. Paul told Timothy the Scriptures were able to make him wise and were God-breathed, for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in Righteousness.

No, there is no confusion there. Timothy was ordained by Paul as a bishop, and authority was given to him, as to all the bishops, to shepherd the flock. The scriptures are profitable in this task. the task, though, was given to people, not to the book.

The only people who walk away are those who were never of us, according to John.

This is what you were taught to believe, but it is not the only reason. It is one reason, but some also believe in Him, then forsake Him.

Those that are truly His sheep WILL be kept from falling. “Now unto him who is able to keep you from falling and present you faultless before his presence…”.

This is Calvanism at it’s best. It is not Aposotlic, though. Jesus ability to keep us from falling is not in question. Those who wish to be kept must hold fast to that whichthey have attained, and lay hold of that which has laid hold of them. If they do not, then they will be like the 50% of the seeds that sprouted, and did not bear fruit.

 

[guanophore]

Good example of the characteristics and contrast between the elect and non-elect. 2 Timothy 2:12 cited below is a good example; the first is an attribute of the elect and the second part is the attribute of the non-elect.
2 Timothy 2:12 “If we endure, we shall also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us”.

The trouble with using this passage to support your premise is that Paul refers to the “we”. That includes, himself, Timothy, and the other Christians who are receiving the letter.

So, you are saying “either Paul is a ‘we’ or he is not” and that does not make logical sense in the passage.

2 Peter 2:20-21 “They were made free from the evil in the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. But if they return to evil things and those things control them, then it is worse for them than it was before. Yes, it would be better for them to have never known the right way than to know it and to turn away from the holy teaching that was given to them.”

Another good example of the non-elect, they always turn away and will not endure till the end; Jesus never knowing them.

This is also not a good proof text for this brand of soteriology. The only way to become free from the evil in the world is by the blood of Christ. To know the “right way” is to beleive on Christ.

For a persons last state to be worse than the first, they state must be changed. This is what happens in baptism. Nothing else but God can change the original sin of man.

You are saying that this never happened.

Matthew 10:22 "And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.

Same attribute as previous.

You are saying that one who does not endure was not elect. However, Jesus made it clear that 75% of the seeds sprouted and grew. This cannot happen unless the word is implanted. If they were really nonbelievers, then they would not be in a worse state. An unsprouted seed always has the chance to sprout later. One that sprouts, and is choked or withers is gone forever.

Your theology is not consistent with Apostolic Teaching.

 

[catholic_daddy]

It is erroneous to think that the gifts and the call of God are revocable. The authority He gave to the Apostles they passed on to their disciples, the bishops. This is how Jesus chose that the flock should be kept.

Those to whom we are to listen and obey are those to whom this authority is committed. God’s word is not able to be a final authority, because it lacks qualities needed to wield authority. Making it into something it was never meant to be is a form of idolatry, and causes divisions in the body.

So Jesus was just kidding when He talked about vomitting the church at Laodecea out of His mouth, or removing another from their place?

 

[catholic_daddy]

The trouble with using this passage to support your premise is that Paul refers to the “we”. That includes, himself, Timothy, and the other Christians who are receiving the letter.

So, you are saying “either Paul is a ‘we’ or he is not” and that does not make logical sense in the passage.

2 Peter 2:20-21 “They were made free from the evil in the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. But if they return to evil things and those things control them, then it is worse for them than it was before. Yes, it would be better for them to have never known the right way than to know it and to turn away from the holy teaching that was given to them.”

You err in trying to take a parable beyond the main thing it is teaching.

This is also not a good proof text for this brand of soteriology. The only way to become free from the evil in the world is by the blood of Christ. To know the “right way” is to beleive on Christ.

For a persons last state to be worse than the first, they state must be changed. This is what happens in baptism. Nothing else but God can change the original sin of man.

You are saying that this never happened.

Matthew 10:22 "And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.

You are saying that one who does not endure was not elect. However, Jesus made it clear that 75% of the seeds sprouted and grew. This cannot happen unless the word is implanted. If they were really nonbelievers, then they would not be in a worse state. An unsprouted seed always has the chance to sprout later. One that sprouts, and is choked or withers is gone forever.

Your theology is not consistent with Apostolic Teaching.

 

[catholic_daddy]

Why are you here? Did you come to CAF just to criticize the Catholic faith? you are clearly very ignorant about Catholicism, and if you were willing to learn, could do that here. However, a mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.

You don’t like dealing with the texts. You seem to prefer personal attack and insisting everyone pretend the RCC is perfect. That’s a parachute fixin’ to crash. Why are you here?

 

[guanophore]

So Jesus was just kidding when He talked about vomitting the church at Laodecea out of His mouth, or removing another from their place?

No, not a bit. Anyone who wishes to exclude himself from the gifts and call of God can do so, and this will be their fate. His gift and call is immutable, though. If they choose to return to His grace before it is too late, He will be there waiting with open arms.

You don’t like dealing with the texts. You seem to prefer personal attack and insisting everyone pretend the RCC is perfect. That’s a parachute fixin’ to crash. Why are you here?

No, this is not the case. I think you will find that I love dealing with the text! I often do not enjoy how it is twisted by the ignorant…

My question about your goals here is not a “personal attack” but an inquiry.

I never said anything about the RCC (which I consider to be an insulting term) or any Catholics being perfect.

You have misunderstood me, and you have not answered my question.

I came here to learn more about the Catholic faith. How about you?

 

[catholic_daddy]

I am sure it seems that way to you,l since you embrace a non-
Apostolic view of justification.

No, those who are lost are not lost by Jesus, who is able to keep all. Those who are justified,then lost, are those that do not hold fast to what they have attained, run the race in vain, or are disqualified. This is no fault of God’s.

That is a low view of the sovereignty of God, the grace of God and the power of God. . He doesn’t lose any of His and nothing catches him by surprise. Scritpure says he accomplishes ALL of his purpose. If you look at the chain in Rom 8 and are willing to let it say what it says and follow it lgically, it is crystal clear that ALL he calls end up being justified and one day GLORIFIIED. (Glorification is the state Jesus is in, and comes after death, of course.).
Can you hear this passage?..“For whom He foreknew, them He also Predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son. Moreover WHOM he predestined, THEM He also called. And WHOM He called, THEM He also justified, and WHOM He justified, THEM He also glorified.”. This has been called ‘the Golden Chain of Redemption’ and for good reason. Come on in. The water is awesome!

 

[guanophore]

That is a low view of the sovereignty of God, the grace of God and the power of God.

Indeed not! It takes a much more powerful person to allow one that He loves to walk away from Him.

He doesn’t lose any of His and nothing catches him by surprise. Scritpure says he accomplishes ALL of his purpose.

I agree. Those who bite the hand that feeds them are not “lost” or “surprised”. Mortal sin is deliberate/willful. IT is a case of spurning the blood that bought one purposefully. It does not happen by “accident” .

If you look at the chain in Rom 8 and are willing to let it say what it says and follow it lgically, it is crystal clear that ALL he calls end up being justified and one day GLORIFIIED. (Glorification is the state Jesus is in, and comes after death, of course.).
Can you hear this passage?..“For whom He foreknew, them He also Predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son. Moreover WHOM he predestined, THEM He also called. And WHOM He called, THEM He also justified, and WHOM He justified, THEM He also glorified.”. This has been called ‘the Golden Chain of Redemption’ and for good reason. Come on in. The water is awesome!

Oh I hear it! It is written in the past tense because it applies to those who have already gone on to their heavenly reward. What has made it a “chain” is twisting the text into present tense, and applying it to those who have not yet completed their glorification. This “chain” has caused many to believe they cannot be lost. It is enough to sink a soul.