Catholic but not Roman Catholic

[JasonTE]

JPrejean:

This is yet another example of Mr. Engwer stealing from his historical betters (in this case, Brian Tierney and Francis Oakley) without having to demonstrate the same accountability to (or even awareness of) the counter-position.

I never suggested that counterarguments don’t exist or that they should be ignored. To the contrary, I mentioned that there are Roman Catholic counterarguments, but that they’re of a highly arbitrary and malleable nature.

You repeatedly misrepresent what I believe, sometimes on subjects you’ve never even seen me comment upon, then you claim that I’m too unreasonable to warrant further discussion. The problem is with you, not me.

JPrejean:

Mr. Engwer, of course, mentions none of this, acting as if this is simply a matter of historical certainty.

The error, again, is yours, not mine. What I said about the Council of Constance is that it contradicted the First Vatican Council. And I was correct in saying so. What you’re disputing is whether the contradiction refutes the infallibility of the RCC. Those are two different subjects. As I said earlier, Roman Catholics dismiss the contradictions as not touching upon the infallibility of the RCC. But the contradiction is a fact of history, even if Roman Catholic apologists utilize a highly arbitrary and malleable standard to dismiss the contradiction as outside the realm of their infallibility claims. So, here we have yet another example of JPrejean making a mistake and acting as if I’m the one in error. Ironically, he goes on to say:

JPrejean:

If that doesn’t demonstrate the historical naivete I was discussing above, I don’t know what will.

Since the error turns out to have been yours, not mine, should we conclude that it demonstrates your naivete?

JPrejean:

Of course, they neglect to mention that this canon was considered valid in neither East nor West without papal approval.

You’re mistaken. Roman Catholic historian Robert Eno wrote:

“The easterners seemed to attach a great deal of importance to obtaining Leo’s approval of the canon, given the flattering terms in which they sought it. Even though they failed to obtain it, they regarded it as valid and canonical anyway.” (The Rise of the Papacy [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1990], p. 117)

The Roman Catholic scholar William La Due:

“Pope Leo’s victory in the doctrinal arena was frustrated by the setback he suffered through canon 28.” (The Chair of Saint Peter [Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1999], p. 301)

Roman Catholic historian Klaus Schatz:

“Rome’s opposition to the canon was a complete failure” (Papal Primacy [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996], p. 48)

In his own writings after the council, Leo I acknowledged that canon 28 was widely accepted in spite of his rejection of it (ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-106.htm#P5374_1107913 ).

JPrejean:

They also neglect the fact that if we applied their standard (which we obviously don’t), the Robber Council of Ephesus would have been valid, and Mr. Engwer would presumably today be arguing that Scripture clearly proved Monophysitism.

Here we have another example of your errant logic. The issue with Chalcedon is whether people then considered canon 28 valid, not whether Evangelicals today consider it valid. Thus, your suggestion that we would have to accept the Robber Council is fallacious.

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

 

[JasonTE]

hlgomez:

In matters like whether homosexual marriage is correct or not, certain judges interprets the law in contrasting ways. One says it’s constitutional while others say it’s not. Since all these judges certainly CANNOT ultimately interpret the law, the matter is left to the supreme court. This goes the same with the Church. There must be an ultimate interpreter of the Bible, or matters in faith and morals. Otherwise private interpretations or judgement especially in morality issues can lead to division and this certainly is NOT the work of the Holy Spirit.

Who interprets Roman Catholic documents? Do you interpret them? You’re fallible. If you interpret what the Pope says, what a council declares, etc., you’re relying on your personal interpretation of those allegedly infallible sources. There’s no way you can avoid relying on personal judgment. You personally interpret Roman Catholic documents. I personally interpret Biblical documents. What has to be determined is what the correct rule of faith is. Whatever it is, it will have to be personally interpreted. If you’re going to reject every system that involves personal interpretation, then you’ll have to reject every system that exists, including Roman Catholicism.

hlgomez:

All are saying they have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them?

Are you aware that scripture refers to all believers having the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9, 1 Corinthians 3:16, etc.)?

hlgomez:

Knowing also that all sticks to Sola Sriptura but still argues with one another? Is this the work of the Spirit, then?

There are disagreements among Roman Catholics as well. Do you agree with Ted Kennedy’s view of Roman Catholicism? Or Hans Kung’s view? Or Robert Sungenis’ view? Even mainstream conservative Roman Catholics disagree with each other on many issues (the death penalty, Mary’s role in salvation, the salvation of non-Roman-Catholics, etc.).

hlgomez:

When the Church proclaims matters of faith and morality, through the Pope speaking “ex cathedra”, we know for sure that it’s morally correct and the judgement is right. Why? Because Jesus promised that the gates of hell will Not prevail against the Church.

God also promised that Israel wouldn’t be destroyed (Jeremiah 31:35-37). And He promised that He’ll never leave or forsake those who have trusted in Him (Romans 8:30-39, Hebrews 13:5). Do you conclude that Israel and every individual believer is therefore infallible when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals?

There’s no good reason to believe that the RCC is the church being referred to in Matthew 16 anyway. See my treatment of the passage at:

members.aol.com/jasonte3/paul513.htm

Even if it was referring to the RCC, how could you know that it’s referring to infallibility, and that the infallibility occurs when the bishop of Rome is speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals?

hlgomez:

What particular Church is it? Can you connect it historically to the Apostles?

Again, it depends on what definition of “church” you have in mind. Some definitions do go back to the time of the apostles, yes. The spiritual entity consisting only of believers (Ephesians 4:16), for example, goes back to the apostles.

hlgomez:

Why is it that in issues of morality, protestants differ in their judgements? In the early part of the 20th century, all protestants communities declare that contraception was morally wrong, and now all of it accepts it?

There are differences among Roman Catholics as well. Some Roman Catholic leaders of the past believed that the unborn child isn’t quickened until sometime after conception. Modern Roman Catholics disagree with one another over the death penalty, what constitutes a just war, etc. Birth control isn’t an issue I’ve studied much, but I know that some Protestants do oppose it. You’re incorrect in claiming that they all accept it.

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

 

[JasonTE]

SPH1:

The immaculate conception or assumption of Joseph is unlikely.

So are the immaculate conception and assumption of Mary. Nobody in the earliest centuries mentions such doctrines, they can’t be shown to be a probable or certain conclusion to apostolic teaching, and both doctrines are contradicted by multiple church fathers before they were affirmed by any father. From a historical standpoint, why should anybody believe that Mary was immaculately conceived or bodily assumed? If the doctrines aren’t to be accepted on such historical grounds, then on what basis are we supposed to accept them? Papal authority? The papacy itself is a doctrine that can’t historically be traced back to the apostles.

SPH1:

But more to the point, how should we determine the “truth” and apostolicity regarding things like contraception, abortion and stem cell research?

I would argue from general Biblical principles, such as the passages that refer to life existing at conception. If you’re saying that the RCC can address these issues in more detail than the Bible does, I don’t disagree. But that added detail doesn’t prove that we should accept the authority claims of Roman Catholicism. We don’t determine truth by means of pragmatism. If a cult leader offered you even more details than the RCC does, would you consider that greater degree of detail a convincing reason to join that cult? If a cult leader offered to infallibly tell you what clothes you should wear each day, what food you should eat, who you should marry, what decision you should make in each moral choice you face each day, etc., would you conclude that you should convert to his cult, since that cult provides more detail than the Roman Catholic rule of faith provides?

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

 

[SPH1]

JasonTE:

So are the immaculate conception and assumption of Mary.

I’m satisfied these doctrines have their begining in Scripture: the Eve/Mary parallel; Mary as full of grace in Luke. If the “woman” of Revelation 12 can be seen as Mary, that’s it…everything is there. We don’t have the same begining for Joseph.

One more thing about the Assumption. Mary is the greatest Saint of all time. Any Church that could claim her relics would probably be one of the greatest pilgrimage churches. Many churches were built to her honor; none claim her relics. Not even a relic peddler of the middle ages thought to fabricate her relics. I think this shows that the church implicitly always knew she was gone.

JasonTE:

If a cult leader offered you even more details than the RCC does, would you consider that greater degree of detail a convincing reason to join that cult?

Cult leaders do. James White for example.

A cult leader doesn’t have the apostolic primacy from Peter. Furthermore, as my per my reply to ByzCath above, the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are wider than just “Rome.” When the pope finalized these dogmas he didn’t just make up something out of the blue: it is the Catholic Church (which is bigger than just some ECFs) which realized these dogmas. I know you like to use RCC to imply that the pope is making Catholic doctrine as a dictator, but that eliminates the role of the wider Catholic Church in diverse places and times.

 

[JasonTE]

SPH1:

I’m satisfied these doctrines have their begining in Scripture: the Eve/Mary parallel; Mary as full of grace in Luke. If the “woman” of Revelation 12 can be seen as Mary, that’s it…everything is there. We don’t have the same begining for Joseph.

None of the concepts you’re citing logically lead to the Marian doctrines in question. Mary can be paralleled to Eve without Mary being sinless from conception onward. In fact, the church fathers who make the Eve/Mary parallel often go on to describe Mary as a sinner, sometimes even within the same document. The phrase “full of grace” in Luke 1:28 is an old translation that even Roman Catholic translators have been moving away from. See my earlier comments on the subject. The same Greek term is used in Sirach 18:17, but nobody concludes that the people mentioned in that passage are therefore sinless from conception onward. And Revelation 12 says nothing of sinlessness or a bodily assumption, so neither doctrine can rationally be derived from that passage even if we view the woman as Mary. But the passage describes events that never occurred during Mary’s life. The passage is entirely consistent with the view that the woman is Israel or the people of God, and the earliest church fathers to interpret the passage so interpreted it. Some Roman Catholics recognize that the passage describes events that they can’t prove to have occurred in Mary’s life, so they argue that the woman is both Mary and some other entity. But if another entity can explain the entirety of the passage, then there’s no need for a second fulfillment in Mary. But, again, even if we view the woman as Mary, the passage doesn’t logically lead to an immaculate conception or bodily assumption.

SPH1:

One more thing about the Assumption. Mary is the greatest Saint of all time. Any Church that could claim her relics would probably be one of the greatest pilgrimage churches. Many churches were built to her honor; none claim her relics. Not even a relic peddler of the middle ages thought to fabricate her relics. I think this shows that the church implicitly always knew she was gone.

There are other Biblical figures for whom we have little or nothing recorded about their death or any relics. Do you conclude that all of them were bodily assumed to Heaven? There were some traditions of Marian grave sites. And we know that the church didn’t “implicitly always know that she was gone”, since men like Ambrose and Epiphanius denied that any apostolic tradition had been passed down concerning the end of her life. Epiphanius mentions some possibilities about what might have happened to her, but then says that nobody knows what happened. The RCC, however, claims to know. Here we have another example of an alleged apostolic tradition of Roman Catholicism that can’t be traced back to the apostles.

SPH1:

A cult leader doesn’t have the apostolic primacy from Peter.

Neither does the RCC. See my earlier posts in this thread on the subject of the papacy. There’s a consensus among Roman Catholic and non-Roman-Catholic scholars on the fact that the earliest Christians didn’t view Peter and the bishops of Rome as Popes. And that consensus is supported by the historical evidence. If you accept the development of doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary on the basis of alleged papal authority, then on what basis do you accept the development of the papacy?

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

 

[Serafin]

I’m satisfied these doctrines have their begining in Scripture: the Eve/Mary parallel; Mary as full of grace in Luke. If the “woman” of Revelation 12 can be seen as Mary, that’s it…everything is there. We don’t have the same begining for Joseph.

1A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2She was pregnant and cried out in pain

as she was about to give birth. *
**

If the woman of Revelation 12 can be seen as Mary, something which I do not find problematic, it may end up being more than R. Catholics want.
**

Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” 14 So the LORD God said …to the woman: "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;with pain you will give birth to children.

---

Why would an Immaculately conceived woman by definition born without original sin and having committed no actual sins endure the “pains” in childbirth that God specifically stated were a sort of punishment for the sin of Eve? You may be satisfied these doctrines have their beginning in Scripture because of your adherence to the dogmas of your Church . I hope you can understand why that does not apply to the rest of us who, like you, can read Scripture and the writings of the early Church*.*

*Scripture: the Eve/Mary parallel; *

The Eve-Mary paralell although used by the Church fathers does have its problems unlike the Adam -Christ parallell / contrast as is found in Scripture.

• for one thing Eve does not chronologically precede Adam in creation. Mary “Immacutate” seems to inaugurate the new creation…being “saved beforehand”…she preceedes the “New Adam”, Christ…is that not a little odd?
• Eve did not concieve until after the fall…she already had eaten the “mango” from the forbidden tree. Does the parallell apply here?
• etc…you get the idea…One can take any paralell too far!

Blessings

Serafin

 

[hlgomez]

Mr Engwer,

I don’t think you deserve to be noticed on all your replies. You definitely tries to avoid any answers that might put your “faith” or “belief” in jeopardy. Instead of directly answering the questions, you are counter-questioning. There no sense in making a fruitful discussion or debate with you. Anyway, thanks for all your replies to my questions, though most, if not, all of them are biased and you just want to attack the catholic faith.

You may not know it, but you are “kicking against the goad.”

May God bless you.

Pio

 

[JPrejean]

It seems easiest to illustrate what I mean by history with the analogy to Irenaeus that Mr. Engwer gave. As a preface, I would remark that historical data is a question of authenticity more than interpretation. But once you attempt to explain what a document means, then you’re crossing into the realm of historical theory, with all the requisite dangers of anachronism and other methodological errors.

The analogy highlights a misconception Mr. Engwer’s notion of the historical method. Historians do apply a rational process, but in most cases, the historical data will be consistent with several different interpretive theories. In other words, you won’t be able to tell from the record itself which of the theories is right. Some might be more likely and some less likely, but generally, it isn’t going to be clear which among them is correct. That comes only through careful analysis of testable cases and subjection of the theories to the rules against anachronism, etc., and even that usually will leave more than one viable candidate. So I would say that any historian worth his salt wouldn’t go in expecting to be able to answer the question definitively based on the record. This is why the suggestions that my argument is historically deficient because it doesn’t definitively select Catholicism are ridiculous. If anything, the claim that a historical argument does definitively select one and only one religion as historical are the ones most likely to be wrong.

The analogy itself is bad because the basis of comparison between the two cases (Scripture and Irenaeus) is false on historical grounds. One would expect as a historical matter to be able to identify formal theological doctrine from Irenaeus, because he was by and large writing on theological matters and we have a relatively good record of the times (to the extent any ancient historical record can be good). But Scripture isn’t a theology textbook. Absent some other presupposition (like your theological presupposition of sola Scriptura), one wouldn’t have an expectation of being able to interpret Scripture using purely linguistic analysis. By ordinary historical methods, there is no historical reason for thinking that Scripture would function that way, and thus, any such understanding must be treated advancing a theory.

This gets to the crux of the dispute: what does it mean to say that a religion is historical? Although it’s something of a complicated question, I would argue that it means that the religion’s theological claims have historical consequences that can be set forth in a historical theory, and that when tested against the historical record, this theory is found to be consistent.

I have yet to see any evidence at all that Mr. Engwer’s theory is by any means a historical theory. He has corrected my error that the faith should be clear to every Christian and my charge that he must explain the deviations of early Christians from his doctrine, and I accept his correction. So I ask now: what is left that can possibly be tested against history? Such a theory of apostolicity can never be shown false by history, since any demonstration of doctrinal disagreements is simply attributed to sin, to error, or to whatever form of human fallibility seems most convenient. Mr. Engwer has done exactly what Catholics are often falsely accused of doing: defined his belief in such a way that no historical evidence could possible refute it. That is the definition of an unhistorical theology.

We Catholics have at least stuck our necks out onto the chopping block of history. The papal documents are out there, and if a contradiction can be shown, we have to explain it coherently. Scripture is out there; if we are shown to contradict it definitely, we have to explain that coherently as well. But most of all, we are claiming apostolic succession and preservation of Scripture for centuries, and those claims could easily be proved wrong.

Mr. Engwer has badly misconceived the nature of the Catholic claim. The point is not to say that history unambiguously proves Catholicism as the sole inheritor of the apostolic faith. Frankly, there is no reason to expect that one even could do so. The point is to face that our theology of apostolicity has historical consequences and to lay those consequences are out on the table for anyone to examine. In addition to its falsifiability, there are a large number of reasons, such as the long historical continuity and the observable process by which doctrine has developed, that reinforce the Catholic theory’s persuasiveness. You may still not be convinced by that demonstration, and that’s fine, but no one can pretend that we don’t have a historical case. And please don’t stand with a theory that cannot even possibly be falsified by history and claim that you deserve any kind of historical status.

 

[SPH1]

JasonTE,

The reason you cannot accept the Catholic view is because you don’t have the Holy Spirit to the extent you think you do. You have nothing to offer except your own, admittedly fallible views. We have the Church founded upon Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit. Maybe someday you will stop opposing Christ and come to His Church.

 

[SPH1]

serafin:

Why would an Immaculately conceived woman by definition born without original sin and having committed no actual sins endure the “pains” in childbirth that God specifically stated were a sort of punishment for the sin of Eve?

I see this as a psychological-type pain. I believe the church teaches that Mary gave birth to Christ without any physical pain. The gospel accounts do not even mention midwives, as I recall, being called to the manger.

 

[SPH1]

JPrejean:

Mr. Engwer has done exactly what Catholics are often falsely accused of doing: defined his belief in such a way that no historical evidence could possible refute it. That is the definition of an unhistorical theology.

Jason has stated that five difference Church Fathers might contradict one another. He offers no solution. There is no way his group can claim the ECF’s as a continuity or predecessor, and I don’t see that he does.

I don’t know why he even refers to them as Church Fathers.

Maybe he is claiming all or some of the heretics the ECF’s often wrote against? Kind of like the Baptistic “Trail of Blood” theory?

 

[JPrejean]

Mr. Engwer raised several “errors” that I made. Here are my responses:

JasonTE:

I never suggested that counterarguments don’t exist or that they should be ignored. To the contrary, I mentioned that there are Roman Catholic counterarguments, but that they’re of a highly arbitrary and malleable nature.

But neither Oakley nor Tierney make that charge, and they are the ones whose arguments you’re using. Nor does it acknowledge that there have been subsequent responses to the charges they did make.

JasonTE:

You repeatedly misrepresent what I believe, sometimes on subjects you’ve never even seen me comment upon, then you claim that I’m too unreasonable to warrant further discussion. The problem is with you, not me.

If I made a mistake about your view along the way, I apologize, but it’s not hard for you to correct a misrepresentation. I have had to spend a great deal of time correcting your misrepresentations of the discipline of history generally and the Catholic theory of history in particular, and not only do you refuse to acknowledge them, you repeat them.

JasonTE:

The error, again, is yours, not mine. What I said about the Council of Constance is that it contradicted the First Vatican Council. And I was correct in saying so. What you’re disputing is whether the contradiction refutes the infallibility of the RCC. Those are two different subjects.
…
So, here we have yet another example of JPrejean making a mistake and acting as if I’m the one in error.
…
Since the error turns out to have been yours, not mine, should we conclude that it demonstrates your naivete?

I won’t let you equivocate your way out of this one. You were making the statement in response to a Catholic to illustrate that the Holy Spirit could not be guiding the Catholic Church infallibly. I know they’re separate issues. I also don’t think there is any doubt at all from the context that you were using it to challenge infallibility. You were misusing an argument from other sources, you got busted, and now you’re accusing me of error for rightly discovering it. If the last post demonstrated naivete, this one demonstrates dishonesty unless you can somehow explain how your remark could possibly have been relevant to your discussion with hlgomez. If you do, I’ll apologize, but either way, I haven’t committed any errors.

And by the way,

JasonTE:

a highly arbitrary and malleable standard to dismiss the contradiction as outside the realm of their infallibility claims

It’s again funny that the professional historians who you quote don’t say this, but you do.

JasonTE:

You’re mistaken.

Not in the least. Sure, the East claimed it was canonical for quite a while, but eventually, they conceded it wasn’t.
mwt.net/~lnpalm/byzantin.htm

Here we have another example of your errant logic. The issue with Chalcedon is whether people then considered canon 28 valid, not whether Evangelicals today consider it valid. Thus, your suggestion that we would have to accept the Robber Council is fallacious.

It’s called a joke. I.e., if the Council had gone the other way, the Catholic belief would be in Monophysitism, and you would then be attempting to steal our beliefs and claim that they were supportable directly from Scripture, just like you’re doing now. Get it?

 

[fulloftruth]

The word Roman was added during the time of the reformation, to distinguish the Church from the hundreds of splinter churches that were popping up everywhere based on different interpretations of scripture.
I would also add that during a conversation with a born again this week she stated that our Church (the Catholic Church) has this thing tradition and that her church only follows the bible. I asked her who told her that when Christ said “unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you” that he was speaking figuratively. She said her pastor. I asked “you didn’t interpret that yourself?” She said no. I said “then you do have tradition, its just different than Catholic tradition. Your thought patterns were handed down to you from previous protestants, Either written or by word of mouth. Both of which are tradition. but is impossible for every christian to interpret every part of the bible for him or herself. We all rely on what past generations of believers have developed as far as dogma is concerned.” So if you are a protestant, don’t lie to yourself and say that you don’t have tradition.
I have a question? How is it that led by the Spirit, guided by the Word, so many non-Catholic christians disagree on so many interpretations of scripture. Contracepcion, abortion, homosexuality, divorce, real presence, baptism, female priests, etc… Can the Spirit through the word lead believers in many different directions. Is there no truth.
Now I am sure you will say that your denomination or church has it right. But Christ didn’t start his church in this century in your town or even 4 or 5 hundred years ago. He started a church that would fill the whole earth with believers, Baptising them in the name of the trinity, giving them the flesh and blood of that feeds the soul. His church is guarded by the Spirit so that 2000 years later the same truth can be delivered to starving souls that was given to the apostles. In just 400 hundred years protestants have taken 6 books out of scripture and misinterpreted hundreds of teachings. Imagine how adulterated it will be in 2000 years. That is not what Christ intended.
More will be revealed

 

[JasonTE]

JPrejean:

This is why the suggestions that my argument is historically deficient because it doesn’t definitively select Catholicism are ridiculous.

I explained that I was referring to probability, so your objection is irrelevant to my argument.

JPrejean:

One would expect as a historical matter to be able to identify formal theological doctrine from Irenaeus, because he was by and large writing on theological matters and we have a relatively good record of the times (to the extent any ancient historical record can be good). But Scripture isn’t a theology textbook. Absent some other presupposition (like your theological presupposition of sola Scriptura), one wouldn’t have an expectation of being able to interpret Scripture using purely linguistic analysis.

There are multiple errors in the distinction you’re making. First, I didn’t argue that we must limit ourselves to scripture. If you think you can prove the existence of some apostolic material outside of scripture, then do so.

Secondly, whatever our apostolic sources are, whether only scripture or scripture and something else, the fact that those sources don’t address theology as deeply as Irenaeus does is irrelevant. Whatever apostolic material we have is what we have to work with. If the apostolic material we have is different from the material of Irenaeus in some way, then we have to live with that fact. If we were to make a comparison to Ignatius rather than to Irenaeus, would the point I was making change? No, it wouldn’t. Even though Ignatius was writing in a different genre than Irenaeus (epistles to six churches and an epistle to Polycarp), historians would still approach Ignatius in the manner I described, not in the manner you’ve suggested with regard to the apostles. No historian would interpret Ignatius’ letter to the Ephesians in the manner you’re advocating for the interpretation of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. No historian would conclude that Ignatius believed in a bodily assumption of the apostle Andrew just because such a doctrine doesn’t contradict some “explicit dogmas” and could be seen as “implicit” in Ignatius’ letter in some non-rational way.

Third, not only have I never argued that scripture is to be interpreted in a “purely linguistic” manner, but I specifically denied that I hold that view in a previous discussion we had. As I explained to you previously, other factors are relevant to interpreting the Biblical documents, including the writings of the church fathers.

JPrejean:

He has corrected my error that the faith should be clear to every Christian and my charge that he must explain the deviations of early Christians from his doctrine, and I accept his correction.

Let’s be more specific about what I said. I did say that not every error of the church fathers must be explained. There are some errors made by the church fathers that no scholar of any type, as far as I know, has been able to explain. But I also said that we should attempt to explain the deviations of the fathers, and that Evangelicals have given many reasonable explanations.

continued in next post

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

 

[JasonTE]

JPrejean:

So I ask now: what is left that can possibly be tested against history? Such a theory of apostolicity can never be shown false by history, since any demonstration of doctrinal disagreements is simply attributed to sin, to error, or to whatever form of human fallibility seems most convenient.

I don’t know how you could raise such an objection unless you’ve badly misunderstood what I’ve been arguing. I said that a doctrine should be considered apostolic if it’s a probable or certain conclusion to apostolic teaching. If I was to argue that Jesus isn’t the Messiah, that assertion would be disproven by dozens upon dozens of New Testament references to Jesus being the Messiah. If I was to argue that we shouldn’t pray to the dead, but you could document David praying to Abraham in the Psalms or Paul encouraging people to pray to Stephen in one of his epistles, my position would be refuted using my method. My method requires me to show that it’s probable that the apostles taught justification through faith alone, the deity of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, etc. My method allows you or anybody else to disprove my beliefs by showing that the weight of probability in the apostolic sources (whether scripture alone or scripture and other sources) is against my position.

Contrary to what you claim, I don’t “conveniently” dismiss the church fathers. If I’m going to argue that they’re wrong, I need to produce evidence of it from the apostolic sources. And if the apostolic sources are unclear on an issue or don’t address the issue, the fathers can (and do) influence my judgment. Since scripture doesn’t contradict Peter’s presence in Rome, for example, and the evidence from the fathers suggests that he did go to Rome late in his life, I conclude that Peter did go to Rome and probably was martyred there. Or when men like Irenaeus and Hippolytus refer to all deceased believers being in a place of peace and joy, such a fact adds more weight to my conclusion from scripture that there is no Purgatory. And, on the other hand, when such a large number of fathers advocate some form of justification through works, that fact motivates me to reconsider my reading of the apostolic sources and my conclusion that the apostles taught justification through faith alone. Even if I still think the apostolic sources are clear enough to outweigh the patristic claims, I would still attempt to give an explanation for the fathers disagreeing with me, and I would take seriously the possibility that I’ve erred. Etc.

I could give many other examples. Your description of how my method works is highly inaccurate and misleading.

JPrejean:

Mr. Engwer has done exactly what Catholics are often falsely accused of doing: defined his belief in such a way that no historical evidence could possible refute it. That is the definition of an unhistorical theology.

You claim that doctrines like the papacy and the Immaculate Conception developed in a manner that doesn’t follow a rational process, that those doctrines did not grow from apostolic teaching in the same way that an oak would naturally grow from an acorn. Would you explain to us how the alleged apostolicity of such doctrines is falsifiable, then?

JPrejean:

We Catholics have at least stuck our necks out onto the chopping block of history.

If you can’t trace doctrines such as the papacy and the Immaculate Conception back to the apostles by means of a rational process, your head has been cut off, even if you don’t care to admit it.

continued in next post

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

 

[JasonTE]

JPrejean:

Scripture is out there; if we are shown to contradict it definitely, we have to explain that coherently as well.

So, if a Roman Catholic doctrine is shown to be highly likely to be false, you don’t need to address that fact, since the doctrine isn’t definitely false? What if the weight of probability is against the perpetual virginity of Mary? Or what if hundreds of Biblical passages on prayer say nothing of praying to the dead, scripture repeatedly condemns any attempt to contact the deceased, and the ante-Nicene fathers repeatedly condemn the practice of praying to anybody other than God? Does the high probability that the apostles wouldn’t want us to pray to the dead not need to be addressed, since it isn’t definite?

JPrejean:

But most of all, we are claiming apostolic succession and preservation of Scripture for centuries, and those claims could easily be proved wrong.

Most of all? Not only are those two assertions not what Roman Catholicism claims most of all, but the second one isn’t disputed and doesn’t prove anything that’s of much significance in this context. Who denies that the RCC preserved scripture? So did the Essenes, Eastern Orthodox, etc. Even the claim of apostolic succession won’t be disputed if you define it as nothing more than a list of bishops going back to the time of the apostles. A number of groups have such lineages, and they contradict each other in what they teach.

I would say that a Roman Catholic claim that’s more significant than the two you’ve mentioned is the claim that the RCC has maintained all apostolic teaching in unbroken succession throughout church history. It’s also significant when the RCC claims that specific doctrines such as the papacy and the Immaculate Conception have always been understood and taught by the church. Such historical claims can be historically tested. And they fail the test. That’s why you keep trying to avoid defending those claims. You would prefer to defend more vague concepts of “not contradicting explicit dogmas”, “development of the implicit”, “preservation of scripture”, etc.

JPrejean:

The point is not to say that history unambiguously proves Catholicism as the sole inheritor of the apostolic faith.

You keep burning straw men. Who said that you must “unambiguously” prove Roman Catholicism? Historical conclusions are matters of probability. And you haven’t shown that Roman Catholicism is probable. The First Vatican Council goes as far as to say that the papacy (the foundation of Roman Catholic authority claims) is a clear doctrine of scripture that has always been understood by the church, a doctrine that none can doubt and is known to all ages, a doctrine that people with perverse opinions deny (session 4, chapters 1-2). Yet, you’ve told us that the papacy is a gradual doctrinal development that cannot be shown to have grown from apostolic teaching as an oak would naturally grow from an acorn. Your denomination keeps making high claims about its historical depth, but you keep telling us that we can’t rationally detect that alleged historical depth in the historical record. What are we to conclude about a group that makes historical claims that it can’t rationally defend from the historical record?

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

 

[JasonTE]

JPrejean:

But neither Oakley nor Tierney make that charge, and they are the ones whose arguments you’re using. Nor does it acknowledge that there have been subsequent responses to the charges they did make.

First of all, I’ve never read Oakley or Tierney, nor did I even mention them. Your suggestion that I should have mentioned that people responded to their work is absurd. I wasn’t even discussing their work. Secondly, nothing you’ve said above changes the fact that you were wrong in your characterization of my argument.

JPrejean:

You were making the statement in response to a Catholic to illustrate that the Holy Spirit could not be guiding the Catholic Church infallibly.

You’re referring to post 258 in this thread. I was addressing what it means for the Holy Spirit to be in an entity. I explained that the Holy Spirit allegedly being in the RCC hasn’t kept the RCC from erring. I also explained that the Holy Spirit being in individual believers hasn’t kept them from erring. I wasn’t denying that somebody could arbitrarily come up with a standard to dismiss all of the RCC’s errors as unofficial, just as somebody could arbitrarily come up with a standard to dismiss every error made by every believer as unofficial.

JPrejean:

Sure, the East claimed it [canon 28 of Chalcedon] was canonical for quite a while, but eventually, they conceded it wasn’t.

That’s not what you originally said. In post 272 in this thread, you commented:

JPrejean:

Of course, they neglect to mention that this canon was considered valid in neither East nor West without papal approval.

Even if it had been accepted only for “quite a while”, it would still have historical significance against the papacy. So, why would you criticize Evangelicals for citing it?

And where are you getting the concept that the East later conceded that the canon wasn’t valid? I still see the canon cited by Eastern Orthodox sources. Kallistos Ware, for example, writes:

“Leo repudiated this Canon, but the east has ever since recognized its validity.” (fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/history_timothy_ware_1.htm )

JPrejean:

It’s called a joke. I.e., if the Council had gone the other way, the Catholic belief would be in Monophysitism, and you would then be attempting to steal our beliefs and claim that they were supportable directly from Scripture, just like you’re doing now. Get it?

You said that the Robber Council would be valid if we applied Evangelical standards to it. But Evangelicals don’t cite canon 28 of Chalcedon because they approve of the standards used to pass it. They cite the canon because of what it tells us about the standards of Leo’s opponents.

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

 

[JPrejean]

Well, I was doing this for your benefit, and seeing there won’t be any, I can’t see any point in continuing. I was somewhat hopeful after your previous post that you might have made some progress in your thinking, but sadly, it was not to be. Ah, well, only God can change a heart, so I will trust in His work and not mine.

I will add a remark that I neglected in my last response about anachronism. You badly misinterpret documents such as those of Pius IX, Leo XIII, and Vatican I when you interpret what they mean by clear in terms of your own personal understanding, despite repeated observations that you are reading those documents entirely out of context (PhilVaz and Steve Ray both pointed this out to Bill Webster, but it didn’t help there either). It certainly doesn’t help your case when you place your own subjective notion of “clear” (for example) into what the Pope was saying. Your case may well be beyond help anyway, but blatant anachronism in a supposedly historical argument will kill the argument before it even gets out of the gate.

 

[SPH1]

Since the debate between JasonTE and JPrejean appears to be concluded, I supposed the spectators can comment.

Although JasonTE has focused primarily on the Immaculate Conception, Assumption and even the Papacy, it seems obvious that he will contend that ALL of Catholic doctrine which contradicts his is not a probable development from scripture.

Meaning all of the sacraments, including baptismal regeneration, confirmation, the Real Presence in the Eucharist…none of our sacraments or practices are historically/biblically probable views.

Whereas all of his views are.

It is also obvious that by the time of Augustine (indeed, even before) the whole visible church is in error, according to JasonTE. He gives no explanation of why this is.

But that’s assuming that JasonTE claims Augustine and the other ECF’s as really part of the historic Christian Church.

And I don’t know why he would do so.

We, on the other hand, can resolve the matter of the ECF’s with doctrinal development and the working of the Holy Spirit over time.

 

[PhilVaz]

SPH << Since the debate between JasonTE and JPrejean appears to be concluded, I supposed the spectators can comment. >>

Let’s see, I score this debate out of a possible 10 points.

JPrejean 7, JasonTE 3

SPH << But that’s assuming that JasonTE claims Augustine and the other ECF’s as really part of the historic Christian Church. >>

They were all part of the historic Christian Church, but not part of Roman Catholicism, since Roman Catholicism started sometime in the 17th or 18th century, maybe later, but definitely sometime after Luther and Calvin. The first Roman Catholic may have been Pius IX.

I’ll sum up the thread: the true church is that which is 15 years old, which is much better than a church that is 2000 years old and contradicts the doctrines of the apostles, which is why “we should look to the Bible instead of the early Church Fathers” who held to so many contradictory beliefs – okay let’s call them lies – in fact so many unbiblical lies that makes evangelical Protestantism absolutely true. THE END.

Phil P