Catholic but not Roman Catholic

[SPH1]

JasonTE:

You’ve retracted your suggestion that the doctrine was maintained by the Roman church. If it wasn’t maintained by Rome, then where was it maintained?

No. I wanted to edit/delete that part because it wasn’t thought out at all. I’m not saying the doctrine wasn’t maintained by Rome.

JasonTE:

I’m confident about the deity of Christ

I wonder how far you’d get playing your game with the Church Fathers on this one. Was the Trinity always held by the church? What could a JW produce with regard to the Fathers?

JasonTE:

Yes, my conclusions are a result of my own fallible judgment,

Then you really cannot say for certain. You admit you could be wrong about the Trinity. And that’s all you and Protestantism as a whole have to offer. What I call religious atheism.

JasonTE:

but your conclusions are likewise a result of your fallible judgment.

Naw. I’m holding with the Church. I cannot trust my own, fallible judgment.

JasonTE:

Your choice to trust the RCC is just that: your choice. And it’s an erroneous choice that’s contrary to the evidence.

Despite your efforts, you haven’t proven that the Immaculate Conception Doctrine is false.

But that isn’t really you goal. Rather, your goal is to attack the Catholic Church itself at it’s core, to replace the magisterium with you and James White.

The WCF, XXVI, ( freechurch.org/muir/wcf.htm )
states that, “V. The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error”. There’s no need to leave the Catholic Church even if you could "prove’ an error.

 

[JasonTE]

SPH1:

I’m not saying the doctrine wasn’t maintained by Rome.

None of the Roman sources of the earliest centuries advocate the concept that Mary was sinless from conception onward. The doctrine was denied by several Roman bishops. Why would anybody think it had always been maintained by Rome?

SPH1:

I wonder how far you’d get playing your game with the Church Fathers on this one. Was the Trinity always held by the church? What could a JW produce with regard to the Fathers?

I don’t claim that my denomination has existed throughout church history, has maintained all apostolic teachings in every generation, and was the church of the fathers. I don’t make claims comparable to the claims made by your denomination. If you don’t want to carry a weightier burden of proof, then stop making weightier claims.

Some church fathers did contradict Trinitarian doctrine. But Trinitarianism is Biblical, regardless of whether some fathers contradicted the concepts.

SPH1:

You admit you could be wrong about the Trinity. And that’s all you and Protestantism as a whole have to offer. What I call religious atheism.

How is it “religious atheism” to admit that you could be wrong? Are you saying that you can’t be wrong? Do you consider yourself infallible?

SPH1:

Naw. I’m holding with the Church. I cannot trust my own, fallible judgment.

How do you know that there is a church, what the church is, what it’s teaching, etc.? You perceive all of those things through your own fallible judgment.

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[PhilVaz]

SPH << But that isn’t really you goal. Rather, your goal is to attack the Catholic Church itself at it’s core, to replace the magisterium with you and James White. >>

Hee hee. Your earlier point about the Trinity is a good one, since you won’t find the language “of one substance” or “the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are eternal distinct Persons, equal in nature, substance, essence,” etc. The doctrine developed in the same Church, and by the same people, that developed the doctrines of Mary.

For example, JND Kelly on the Trinity:

“The Church had to wait for more than three hundred years for a final synthesis, for not until the council of Constantinople (381) was the formula of one God existing in three co-equal Persons formally ratified. Tentative theories, however, some more and some less satisfactory, were propounded in the preceding centuries…The evidence to be collected from the Apostolic Fathers is meagre, and tantalizingly inconclusive…Of a doctrine of the Trinity in the strict sense there is of course no sign…” (Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, page 87-88, 95, cf. page 101ff for the 2nd century Apologists)

And from Eric Svendsen (a JasonTE mentor):

“There have been many beliefs held by the church for hundreds of years before some controversy forced it into the open and an official statement was made. Very little was said about a belief in the Trinity before the council of Nicaea and the Athanasian creed. Are we to assume that the church did not widely hold to a belief in the Trinity before Nicaea? Of course not…The reason little was said about the Trinity before Nicaea is that it was not an issue until Nicaea. Arius could well have argued that belief in the Trinity was unhistorical in his day (after all, there were no explicit statements about the Trinity for three-hundred years)…” (Eric Svendsen, Evangelical Answers, page 120)

I also quote E. Calvin Beisner, the evangelical scholar/historian (brother of Gretchen Passantino) here on development of doctrine:

Second Rebuttal my debate with JasonTE

The doctrine of the Trinity, and the Marian doctrines, developed in the same Church, and by the same Fathers, Doctors, and Catholic theologians. To accept the one, and reject the others seems a bit inconsistent. For one to claim to be “Catholic” as the Fathers (but not “Roman Catholic”), one should go at least as far as saints Augustine and Aquinas and make Mary an exception to sin – along with Mother of God and perpetual Virgin of course which even the original Protestants accepted.

Phil P

 

[JasonTE]

PhilVaz:

The doctrine of the Trinity, and the Marian doctrines, developed in the same Church, and by the same Fathers, Doctors, and Catholic theologians. To accept the one, and reject the others seems a bit inconsistent. For one to claim to be “Catholic” as the Fathers (but not “Roman Catholic”), one should go at least as far as saints Augustine and Aquinas and make Mary an exception to sin – along with Mother of God and perpetual Virgin of course which even the original Protestants accepted.

Your assertion that the same church that developed Trinitarian doctrine also developed the Roman Catholic Marian doctrines is an unproven assertion that’s been refuted in depth in my debate with you two years ago, in the previous posts in this thread, and in my series on the church fathers. The fact that men like Augustine and Aquinas could hold an orthodox view of the Trinity for hundreds of years without agreeing with your denomination’s view of Mary ought to suggest to you that Trinitarian doctrine and your Marian doctrines aren’t in the same category. People can derive Trinitarian doctrine from passages like John 1, 1 Corinthians 8, Hebrews 1, etc. as probable or certain conclusions to what the text says. Doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary, on the other hand, are neither probable nor certain conclusions logically derived from anything Jesus and the apostles taught.

And why do you say that I ought to at least agree with Augustine that Mary became sinless sometime after conception? If I don’t derive my Trinitarianism from Augustine, why would my acceptance of Trinitarianism suggest that I ought to derive my view of Mary from him? Why can’t I agree with people like John Chrysostom, who believed that Mary did sin in her post-conception behavior?

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[SPH1]

JasonTE:

The doctrine was denied by several Roman bishops.

I don’t know that. I’d have to take the time to study them. But if your treatment of the ECF’s thus far is an indication, I wouldn’t be surprised if you’ve spun them out of context.

JasonTE:

I don’t claim that my denomination has existed throughout church history, has maintained all apostolic teachings in every generation, and was the church of the fathers.

I find this statement remarkable. If your “denomination” is supposed to be the “truth”, the truest expression Christianity, then the Church didn’t always exist.

Do you even claim that the true Church has always existed? And “no,” I’m not referring to some silly notion of an invisible Church of “true” believers apart from doctrine and practice.

JasonTE:

I don’t make claims comparable to the claims made by your denomination. If you don’t want to carry a weightier burden of proof, then stop making weightier claims.

That’s just it. You (and I mean your denomination) don’t have anything hanging out there; nothing at risk. You are free to morph as necessary. How can you represent the true Church of God?

JasonTE:

How is it “religious atheism” to admit that you could be wrong?

Individuals can be wrong. But to say that the Church itself is wrong is what I call religious atheism. It denies the living headship of Christ; it denies the guidance of the Holy Spirit throughout history.

Take the JW’s for example. If the Church cannot even get it correct about who Christ is, then in what sense is God running the Church? Might as well not even have God involved. In the end, all JW’s have to offer is religious atheism. You and the rest of Protestantism are right behind them.

It isn’t a choice between Catholicism vs. Eastern Orthodoxy or some form of Protestantism. It’s between Catholicism and atheism, for if the Catholic Church is that wrong - God doesn’t exist. (The Christian God, in any event.)

JasonTE:

Some church fathers did contradict Trinitarian doctrine. But Trinitarianism is Biblical, regardless of whether some fathers contradicted the concepts.

But I’d say the same about Catholic teachings: they’re Biblical.

 

[JasonTE]

SPH1:

If your “denomination” is supposed to be the “truth”, the truest expression Christianity, then the Church didn’t always exist.

As I explained in another thread, the term “church” has been defined in a variety of ways. Sometimes it refers to a local assembly, such as the church that met in Philemon’s house or the church of Laodicea. Sometimes it refers to all local assemblies collectively. Etc. You can believe that a church has existed since the time of the apostles, as I do, without believing that there was a worldwide denomination always maintaining all apostolic teaching.

SPH1:

I’m not referring to some silly notion of an invisible Church of “true” believers apart from doctrine and practice.

Who ever said that the church of believers exists “apart from doctrine and practice”? Believers believe in something. That’s why they’re called “believers”. That object in which they believe would have particular attributes known as “doctrine”. And those same believers who have doctrine also have some behavioral traits that would be called “practice”. So, I don’t know where you get the concept that the invisible church exists without doctrine and practice. No, believers don’t agree on every conceivable doctrine and practice, but there are some general characteristics among them. They would all hold the doctrine of Jesus’ Messiahship, for example. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be considered believers.

The concept of a church consisting only of believers is taught in scripture, and is sometimes referred to in the church fathers, along with other definitions of the term “church”. Ephesians 4:16, for example, refers to a body of Christ in which every part of the body participates in its spiritual growth. Atheists, agnostics, and other unbelievers wouldn’t be included in such a definition of the term “church”.

SPH1:

You (and I mean your denomination) don’t have anything hanging out there; nothing at risk. You are free to morph as necessary.

No, we’re accountable to apostolic teaching, just as everybody else is. If we make a claim about a doctrinal issue, it can be evaluated in light of what Jesus and the apostles taught.

SPH1:

But to say that the Church itself is wrong is what I call religious atheism. It denies the headship of Christ; it denies the guidance of the Holy Spirit throughout history.

Are you consistent in your reasoning? In marriage, the man is the head of the home. Must the wife be incapable of error in order for the man to be the head? Scripture refers to the Holy Spirit guiding every individual believer. Do we conclude that every believer is therefore infallible?

Besides, I reject your assumption that the RCC has never been wrong. In order to argue for the infallibility of the RCC, you have to make a series of unproven and unproveable assertions. Roman bishops and councils can repeatedly teach error and contradict one another, yet you’ll argue that none of the errors were official. By such reasoning, any group that wanted to could come up with some standard by which they could claim infallibility.

SPH1:

But I’d say the same about Catholic teachings: they’re Biblical.

Then would you answer the question that no Catholic in this thread has answered so far? Pope Pius IX claimed that the Immaculate Conception of Mary is a doctrine recorded in scripture. Where is it?

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[PhilVaz]

JasonTE << is an unproven assertion that’s been refuted in depth in my debate with you two years ago, in the previous posts in this thread, and in my series on the church fathers. >>

Well, I guess we have to disagree then. We did go pretty in depth, I agree. And I didn’t finish, darn it. And took on perhaps too big a burden of proof, but that’s my fault.

My version

Your version

JasonTE << Why can’t I agree with people like John Chrysostom, who believed that Mary did sin in her post-conception behavior? >>

How about because you are a western Christian, so you should stick with Augustine and Aquinas. If you wanna go Orthodox be my guest, but even the eastern Catholic Christians today will tell you Chrysostom was wrong to say Mary committed any sin.

Mary and the Eastern Christian

Immaculate Conception, Bible and Fathers

“Quotations can easily be multiplied, and they give clear indications that the Mariological piety of the Byzantines would probably have led them to accept the definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary as it was defined in 1854 [by Pope Pius IX], if only they had shared the Western doctrine of original sin.” (John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology, page 148)

The difference between east and west here is not over the sinlessness or the Immaculate Conception of Mary as such, but over our understandings of “original sin.”

What about St. John Chrysostom’s strong belief in the Eucharist and ministerial priests? Come on, admit it, your evangelical religion is totally “pick and choose.”

Don’t know how long this thread will go, but if you hang in there JasonTE, I’m sure folks in here will continue with you…

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

JasonTE << Pope Pius IX claimed that the Immaculate Conception of Mary is a doctrine recorded in scripture. Where is it? >>

I answered it in our debate 2 years ago. I agree it is a good question, and the Pope’s “biblical” evidence is admittedly “weak” from a modern “grammatical-historical” approach to interpreting Scripture. The Pope (and the Fathers and Doctors who preceded the IC definition) refers to the various types of Mary in the OT, etc. If you reject that, and you accept “Scripture alone” as your authority, and ignore the theological development of the doctrine through the history of the Church, and deny the Pope has any authority to define Christian doctrine, then of course you would reject the IC. Very simple.

Pope Pius IX “biblical defense” goes like this:

The Pope refers to Genesis 3:15 (the Woman, Eve who disobeyed and fell into sin paralleled by the early Fathers with Mary the New Eve who obeyed and did not fall into sin); Proverbs 8 (the Wisdom of God); Luke chapter 1 (especially Full of Grace [Greek: kecharitomene] and Blessed Among Women); the various Marian types – the Ark of Noah; holy Ark of the Covenant; Ladder of Jacob; Burning Bush of Moses; the impregnable tower; that garden that cannot be corrupted; the resplendent city of God; the temple of God full of the glory of God; and other types (cf. Luke 1 with 2 Samuel 6; Song of Songs 4:4,12; Psalm 87(86):1; Isaiah 6:1-7; etc).

As a supplement, see this article on Luke 1:28 and Kecharitomene (Full of Grace)

His “historical defense” goes like this:

“In such allusions the Fathers taught that the exalted dignity of the Mother of God, her spotless innocence, and her sanctity unstained by any fault, had been prophesied in a wonderful manner…they celebrated the august Virgin as the spotless dove, as the holy Jerusalem, as the exalted throne of God, as the ark and house of holiness which Eternal Wisdom built, and as that Queen who, abounding in delights and leaning on her Beloved, came forth from the mouth of the Most High, entirely perfect, beautiful, most dear to God and never stained with the least blemish.” (Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus)

Now we don’t believe the doctrine because this biblical/historical defense is so great (although the historical is definitely the stronger), but because we believe he is the visible head of Christ’s Church. That’s it. You aren’t Catholic so you don’t accept that. You know all this stuff better than most Catholics anyway, so what’s the point of asking all these questions?

At least try to be as fair as you can in understanding Catholic doctrine and the papal documents you quote. I don’t think you are trying hard enough.

Phil P

 

[SPH1]

PhilVaz:

Your earlier point about the Trinity is a good one, since you won’t find the language “of one substance” or “the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are eternal distinct Persons, equal in nature, substance, essence,” etc.

Somewhere earlier in this thread Jason listed some doctrines he believes, including the diety of Christ. It struck me then that he didn’t mention the Trinity. Just above he refers to “the doctrine of Jesus’ Messiahship.”

My point is that I don’t know that Jason does hold to the full Trinity doctrine as defined by the Church. And if he does, he can only hold the full doctrine based on the authority of the Catholic Church.

Now, he’s going to say that he (or his denomination) came up with the full Trinity doctrine all by themselves, from Scripture alone. But nobody is going to come up with that all by themselves.

 

[SPH1]

JasonTE:

You can believe that a church has existed since the time of the apostles, as I do, without believing that there was a worldwide denomination always maintaining all apostolic teaching.

You’ve already stated that, “I don’t claim that my denomination has existed throughout church history, has maintained all apostolic teachings in every generation, and was the church of the fathers.” So this church that you say always existed wasn’t yours.

Furthermore, there is no basis for your belief. You insultingly use the ECF’s, mocking them with their alleged contradictions. Not with the intent of trying to build something and harmonizing it with Christ. But for the sole intent of attacking and destroying the Catholic Church. How is it that you come to the conclusion that a true church existed anywhere between the NT and you?

JasonTE:

Some church fathers did contradict Trinitarian doctrine. But Trinitarianism is Biblical, regardless of whether some fathers contradicted the concepts.

As I said to Phil above, I don’t know that you hold to the full Trinitarian view, how much of the Catholic teaching you accept.

But let’s play your ECF game. The apparent fact some ECF’s contradicted the Trinity doctrine shows it wasn’t a doctrine held and taught by the Church at all times.

JasonTE:

Are you consistent in your reasoning? In marriage, the man is the head of the home. Must the wife be incapable of error in order for the man to be the head?

The headship of Christ and the guidance of the Holy Spirit is more than that.

JasonTE:

Scripture refers to the Holy Spirit guiding every individual believer. Do we conclude that every believer is therefore infallible?

In guiding the Church, God also gave us apostles, teachers, bishops, etc. The Holy Spirit will guide the person into following the Church.

You have a certain mastery in taking something and swallowing the general rule. I noticed this back with Irenaeus. One the one hand, he said every church is to follow Rome. Then, to swallow the rule, you point out “Irenaeus’ standards about bishops having to meet moral and doctrinal requirements before we follow them?” But I don’t read that as meaning everyone is to use their sole judgment on this. It’s up to the authorities in the Church.

 

[JasonTE]

PhilVaz:

How about because you are a western Christian, so you should stick with Augustine and Aquinas.

You consider yourself a Western Christian, but you don’t agree with their view of Mary. But I’m supposed to? And why would the fact that they lived in the same region of the world that I live in mean that I should agree with the beliefs of men who lived hundreds of years after the time of the apostles? Was Nehemiah supposed to agree with his predecessors in Israel who disobeyed the word of God (Nehemiah 8:13-17), since he lived in the same region of the world they lived in?

PhilVaz:

If you wanna go Orthodox be my guest, but even the eastern Catholic Christians today will tell you Chrysostom was wrong to say Mary committed any sin.

Eastern Orthodox hold differing views of Mary. There are some Marian concepts they’re agreed upon, but there are others they consider unnecessary. Even if we assumed that John Chrysostom was an Eastern Orthodox, as if he had to be either Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox (an unreasonable assumption), why would I have to be Eastern Orthodox in order to agree with him on the subject of Mary sinning? Why would you have to belong to the same religious organization that another person belonged to if you agree with one of that person’s beliefs? If you agree with Hindus on an issue, does that mean you need to become a Hindu?

PhilVaz:

What about St. John Chrysostom’s strong belief in the Eucharist and ministerial priests? Come on, admit it, your evangelical religion is totally “pick and choose.”

So, you can choose to agree with John Chrysostom on some issues and disagree with him on others, but I can’t? I don’t claim that he was part of my denomination, an infallible worldwide denomination that was passing on all apostolic teaching in unbroken succession. You do make such claims about the fathers. If you make higher claims about your relationship with the fathers, why would you be expected to meet a lower standard of evidence? Why is it acceptable for you to disagree with Chrysostom on some issues while agreeing with him on others, whereas it’s not acceptable for me to do so?

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[JasonTE]

PhilVaz:

Luke chapter 1 (especially Full of Grace [Greek: kecharitomene] and Blessed Among Women); the various Marian types – the Ark of Noah; holy Ark of the Covenant

Paul refers to Christians standing in grace (Romans 5:2, Ephesians 2:8), even though they continue to sin (1 Corinthians 3:1-3, James 3:2). The rendering of Luke 1:28 as “full of grace” is rejected in most translations of the passage. It’s not the best translation of the term. A group of some of the foremost Roman Catholic and Lutheran scholars in the world, in their study of Mary in the New Testament, concluded that the translation you’ve cited “is not literal and is gradually being replaced among Roman Catholic translators” (Mary in the New Testament, Raymond E. Brown, Karl P. Donfried, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, John Reumann, editors [Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1978], pp. 127-128). They go on to say that reading sinlessness into the text and other popular Roman Catholic interpretations “clearly go beyond the meaning of Luke’s text” (p. 128).

Even if we were to accept the English rendering “full of grace”, it wouldn’t tell us whether Mary was sinless, nor would it tell us when the sinlessness began. Nobody argues that Mary sinned throughout her life. To cite a passage that has no definition of time is insufficient, since timing is the issue in question. We are discussing, after all, whether Mary was sinless from conception. It’s a matter of timing, so even if Luke 1:28 was referring to sinlessness, which it isn’t, it wouldn’t tell us that the sinlessness began at conception.

The Apocryphal book of Sirach, in 18:17, uses the same Greek term as Luke 1:28. Nobody concludes that Sirach 18:17 is referring to people who are immaculately conceived. Similarly, Ephesians 1:6 uses another form of the same Greek root, and nobody concludes that Ephesians 1:6 is referring to immaculately conceived people.

Roman Catholic apologists often claim that Mary would have to be free of sin, since the ark of the covenant is described as having pure gold (Exodus 25:11). But the ark was made of more than gold. And other objects in the Old Testament are also described as being pure, even as having pure gold (Exodus 25:24, 25:29, 28:22, Leviticus 24:6, 1 Kings 6:21, etc.). Must we look for New Testament people who are parallels to those other Old Testament objects? And must those New Testament people all be sinless from conception onward? Since all Christians collectively are referred to as a temple of God, and pure gold was used in the temple, should we conclude that all Christians are sinless from conception? What about the people in the Bible who are described as pure (2 Samuel 22:27, Psalm 18:26, Matthew 5:8, Titus 1:15, etc.)? Are they all sinless from conception?

Why should we even believe that Mary is a parallel to the ark? The Roman Catholic and Lutheran scholars I cited above comment that “there is no convincing evidence that Luke specifically identified Mary with the symbolism of the Daughter of Zion or the Ark of the Covenant.” (p. 134) Why should we think that there would have to be any New Testament parallel? And, if there has to be one, why would Mary be the only candidate? Why not the people of God in general (which was the earliest patristic interpretation of the woman of Revelation 12), the cross that carried Jesus, the tomb in which He was placed, etc.? The earliest ark parallels among the church fathers identify Jesus or something else, not Mary, as the parallel to the ark (Irenaeus [Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus, 48]; Clement of Alexandria [The Stromata, 5:6]; Tertullian [The Chaplet, 9]; etc.). Scripture refers to Christians having Jesus and the Holy Spirit within them. Does every Christian therefore have to be sinless from conception?

continued in next post

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[JasonTE]

PhilVaz:

the Pope’s “biblical” evidence is admittedly “weak” from a modern “grammatical-historical” approach to interpreting Scripture.

What other approach would we use in this context? Other methods of interpretation can be accepted if the person using them has the authority to bind them upon us, but I don’t accept the alleged authority of the Pope. As I told JPrejean earlier, there’s a difference between accepting the Immaculate Conception because of historical evidence that the apostles taught it and accepting it because of alleged papal or church authority.

PhilVaz:

Now we don’t believe the doctrine because this biblical/historical defense is so great (although the historical is definitely the stronger)

People were referring to Mary as a sinner long before anybody referred to her as sinless from conception. The Immaculate Conception is absent from scripture and is contrary to the earliest patristic evidence. Even when the doctrine began to be advocated by some sources, it was still widely contradicted for hundreds of years. And we’re supposed to believe that it’s an apostolic tradition always held and taught by the church?

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[Xenon-135]

Perhaps it may bear a more handsom profit to avoid determining when the doctrine of the Immaculate conception came into existence, and rather examine when it was first rejected.

It reminds me of the prohibition debate. When was there ever a law leaglizing the production and usage of alcohol? There was not, only laws that place limitations on that which is already in progress. Similarly, the evidence will illustrate just how historically juvenile the rejection of the Immaculate Conception is. The broad acceptence of the such a doctrine would be illustrated by the uniform absence of objection to it. Luther, for instance, was a believer in the IC. I understand he later rejected it, but I haven’t viewed any proof to that claim. If it was such an invention, then wouldn’t there be a multitude of dissenters? Like the multitudes who dissented to prohibition?

This schoolboy’s folly of posting smoke and mirror representations of the doctrines of the early church fathers is not only dishonest, but it is disheartening.

I just wonder that if Jesus to you that his mother was without sin, would you then turn from Christianity like did the rich young ruler when told to sell everything and follow?

At what concession to your pride will you abandon the Lord?

 

[JasonTE]

SPH1:

My point is that I don’t know that Jason does hold to the full Trinity doctrine as defined by the Church. And if he does, he can only hold the full doctrine based on the authority of the Catholic Church.

Now, he’s going to say that he (or his denomination) came up with the full Trinity doctrine all by themselves, from Scripture alone. But nobody is going to come up with that all by themselves.

I am a Trinitarian. I’m an Evangelical, which is essentially conservative Protestantism. Protestants are Trinitarians. And, no, I don’t claim that I or my denomination “came up with the full Trinity doctrine all by ourselves”. As with other issues (the existence of God, historical evidence for Jesus’ resurrection, etc.), many sources had already thought about this subject and had compiled arguments for Trinitarianism that led me and others to accept Trinitarianism as well. You don’t have to reinvent the wheel in every generation, but you don’t have to believe in the infallibility of its inventor either. If somebody gives me a list of 20 Biblical passages that allegedly teach the deity of Christ, that list may help me in thinking through the issue, and I may reach a conclusion on the subject more quickly as a result of having been given that list. But that doesn’t make the person who gave me the list infallible, nor does it mean that I must agree with him on every other issue. In fact, I may disagree with his use of some of the 20 Biblical passages he cited, even if I agree with his interpretation of most of them. All of us learn things from, and benefit in other ways from, parents, government leaders, school teachers, etc. We don’t conclude that those people are therefore infallible or that we couldn’t have reached the same conclusions without their help.

If Trinitarianism isn’t Biblical, then nobody is obligated to accept it. If you want to argue that Trinitarianism isn’t Biblical, then why is it that you expect us to accept it? As Athanasius, Hilary of Poitiers, and other church fathers commented, councils such as Nicaea were just repeating what was already taught in scripture. Just as you reject canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon and some of the other teachings of other ecumenical councils, I would reject Trinitarianism if it couldn’t be derived from what the apostles taught.

How is it that people like you claim to be able to find everything from papal infallibility to the immaculate conception and the bodily assumption of Mary in scripture, yet you claim that you can’t see Trinitarianism there? In one of your recent posts, you said:

SPH1:

I’d say the same about Catholic teachings: they’re Biblical.

Yet, now you’re telling us that we can’t derive some of the Trinitarian doctrines of Roman Catholicism from the Bible. Are you saying that the doctrines are there, but nobody can know that they’re there unless the RCC or some other entity tells us so? If an Eastern Orthodox was to argue that his view of church government is taught in scripture, but you can’t know that it’s taught in scripture unless you let the Eastern Orthodox hierarchy interpret scripture for you, would you find such an argument convincing?

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[JasonTE]

SPH1:

You’ve already stated that, “I don’t claim that my denomination has existed throughout church history, has maintained all apostolic teachings in every generation, and was the church of the fathers.” So this church that you say always existed wasn’t yours.

Again, there are multiple definitions of the term “church”. I believe that multiple types of church have always existed since the time of the apostles. One of those types of church would be all orthodox local assemblies as a collective entity. My church is part of that entity. The entity consists of more than my church, but it does include my church.

SPH1:

You insultingly use the ECF’s, mocking them with their alleged contradictions. Not with the intent of trying to build something and harmonizing it with Christ. But for the sole intent of attacking and destroying the Catholic Church.

This is at least the second time I’ve had to correct you on this issue. I hope you won’t repeat the error again. I don’t “mock” the church fathers, nor do I cite them only to criticize Roman Catholicism. As I told you before, anybody can visit my web site, read my posts in other forums, etc. and see me repeatedly citing the church fathers in a positive manner and in order to criticize other groups as well, not just Roman Catholicism. The opening page of my web site quotes Augustine. Other pages at the site positively quote Clement of Rome, John Chrysostom, etc. Anybody who has followed my posts on the NTRM boards may remember some lengthy discussions I had there with a deist who is critical of Christianity, and during that discussion I repeatedly cited the church fathers when addressing the evidence for Christianity. I could give many other examples.

But let’s assume, incorrectly and for the sake of argument, that I do only cite the church fathers to “mock” them and to “attack and destroy the Catholic Church”. Let’s assume, also, that I’m the worst person who has ever lived. I’m worse than Hitler. I’m worse than Stalin. I’m worse than all of them combined. How would any of those facts refute what I’ve cited against Roman Catholicism from the church fathers?

SPH1:

The apparent fact some ECF’s contradicted the Trinity doctrine shows it wasn’t a doctrine held and taught by the Church at all times.

That depends on how “the church” is being defined. If you claim that there was one worldwide denomination founded by Christ and led by a Pope, a denomination that was infallible and was passing on all apostolic teaching in unbroken succession throughout church history, and you claim that the church fathers were members of that denomination, then you’re going to have one set of expectations for what you’ll see in the historical record. On the other hand, if you define the term “church” as a reference to all orthodox local assemblies as a collective entity, and you believe that those local assemblies were to varying degrees governmentally independent of one another, you’re going to have a different set of expectations.

Besdies, I don’t claim that every doctrine of Trinitarianism was held and taught by the church at all times. For example, the fact that Christ has two natures is a logical conclusion to Biblical teaching, but the thief on the cross, the Philippian jailer, and other early Christians didn’t need to have thought through every such Trinitarian concept in order to be a Christian. We today know that Jesus had DNA. That’s a logical conclusion that follows from the Biblical doctrine of His humanity. But did any Christian prior to the twentieth century know about it? No. Did they need to? No. Would we consider a modern Christian heretical if he denied that Jesus had DNA? Yes, probably, since that would involve a denial of His humanity.

Something you need to keep in mind in these discussions, and you seem to keep missing it, is that your denomination makes radically different claims about church history than my denomination and other denominations make. We don’t expect an Eastern Orthodox to defend a Roman Catholic view of church history. Nor do we expect a Baptist to defend an Anglican view of church history. When examining these different groups, you have to take into account the differences in the claims they’re making. I don’t claim the same relationship with the church fathers that you claim to have with them.

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[JasonTE]

Xenon-135:

The broad acceptence of the such a doctrine would be illustrated by the uniform absence of objection to it.

Well, then, the uniform absence of an objection to the immaculate conception of Joseph proves that the early church believed in the doctrine. And the uniform absence of an objection to the concept that there are little green men living on the moon proves that the early church believed in the doctrine. We could go on an on with this sort of reasoning.

But, since you apprently didn’t read much of this thread, let me say again that the sinlessness of Mary was widely denied. There are references to Jesus being the only sinless human or to Mary being sinful at or after conception in Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Basil, Jerome, Ephraim, Ambrose, Hilary of Poitiers, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory Nazianzen, Augustine, etc. At least several Roman bishops denied that Mary was sinless. As I documented earlier in this thread, Augustine commented that his belief that Jesus was the only immaculately conceived human was consistent with the universal faith of the church. Basil made a similar comment.

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[SPH1]

JasonTE:

Are you saying that the doctrines are there, but nobody can know that they’re there unless the RCC or some other entity tells us so?

Yes, I might be saying that.

 

[SPH1]

JasonTE:

You consider yourself a Western Christian, but you don’t agree with their view of Mary. But I’m supposed to?

I don’t believe that either Augustine or Aquinas saw their “views” as the final authority. Both accepted the ultimate authority of the Church.

 

[SPH1]

JasonTE:

As I documented earlier in this thread, Augustine commented that his belief that Jesus was the only immaculately conceived human was consistent with the universal faith of the church.

Part of your game involves the confounding of Original Sin and Actual Sin.

“Now with the exception of the holy Virgin Mary in regard to whom, out of respect for the Lord, I do not propose to have a single question raised on the subject of sin – after all, how do we know what greater degree of grace for a complete victory over sin was conferred on her who merited to conceive and bring forth Him who all admit was without sin – to repeat then: with the exception of this Virgin, if we could bring together into one place all those holy men and women, while they lived here, and ask them whether they were without sin, what are we to suppose that they would have replied?” (St. Augustine, De natura et gratia PL 44:267, from Carol Mariology, volume 1, page 15)
bringyou.to/apologetics/a115.htm

As I read it, at the least Augustine believed that Mary with without any actual sin, and that this was the universal belief of the church by his time. We are well outside Protestantism and deep into Catholicism. All that remains is for the church to fully develop why Mary was without actual sin.

(We can note here that many Protestants don’t even believe in original sin.)

You are also confounding the sinlessness of Mary with that of Christ.

Mary’s sinlessness was a singular act of grace from God. Since it’s due solely to grace, neither Mary nor anyone can boast about it. We can only gaze upon it and wonder.

Christ, on the other hand, was sinless due to His own person/nature/power. It wasn’t a gift of grace. That can be “boasted” about.