Is calvanism biblical ?

[JRKH]

If Calvin said that (and I vaguely remember something of the sort), he was engaging in rhetorical exaggeration at best.

Fair enough…But looking at the title of the thread…
It could hardly be said that something was “biblical” it it’s sole source was something other than the bible…

If that is the Case then is his faith “Christian” or Augustian"?

That seems unfair. I wouldn’t have asked the late Fr. Ralph McInerny, for instance, whether he was a Christian or a Thomist. To be a Thomist or an Augustinian is ipso facto to be a Christian. . . . .

Again - trying to address the Thread title in my response…
In said response I am assuming Calvin held to the concept of Sola Scriptura. If he did then his reliance would need to be on Scripture and not on solely on Augustine (rhetorical exaggeration or not…)
Scripture holds that one NOT hold to particular “camps” or what we might call “cults of personality”…It holds that we belong to Christ and that we listen to the Church…

So - the remark in the OP about relying solely on Augustine…would seem to be at odds with Scripture.

Of course - I’m no Calvinist and know very little about the matter…
The thoughts I have posted are just things that came to me as I pondered the OP…

Well, Calvin addressed that point on a number of occasions: in his Reply to Sadoleto, in Book 4, chap. 2, of the Institutes, and in his treatise on “the necessity of reformation,” just to name the three most famous examples I can think of.

I do not find his explanations convincing. He and those who follow his arguments had to do two things simultaneously:

1. Show that they were not breaking continuity with the historic Catholic Church that had existed throughout the centuries up to that point; and
2. Justify their breach with Rome.

I do not believe that Calvin (or anyone else) succeeded in doing these two things simultaneously. But one needs to recognize that he tried. He did not, like later radical Protestants, simply write off the pre-Reformation Church. nor did he, like many modern evangelicals, deny the importance of visible unity.

I know at least one former Calvinist who became Catholic precisely based on this logic–Calvin’s own ecclesiology leads to Catholicism once one rejects his harsh judgment of the Roman Communion (and if one doesn’t reject that judgment, then one has to make some very nimble historical moves in order not to project that judgment backward over a good deal of the Middle Ages, and perhaps even parts of the early Church).

This is well put. The real problem for the reform protestants was the impossibility of the 2 things they wished to do.
They really did not wish to break with the Church but…
Many others in the Church recognized the need for reform but…
Then politics got involved - which was the worst thing to happen imho …:banghead::slapfight::blackeye:
It’s too bad that cooler heads did not prevail at the time…

They needed my mom and grandma back in the day…
"Luther - Leo - Stop your fighting this instant!!!
…(but he started it)…
"I don’t care WHO started it I’m finishing it!!!..
“Leo. You sit on this chair. Martin - you sit on that chair”
“Now - both sit there an be quiet until you can talk without fighting!!!”
…(sniff, sniff, sniff)…
Half hour later…
"Now that you two have had a chance to simmer down - can you play nice???
…(yes mom)…
“Good - you’re brothers so whatever the problem is - figure it out…And don’t let me catch you fighting again…And tell your brother John what I said too.”

Problem solved - No schism…

Not that I know of. Although some Orthodox priests did go to Geneva for their education, and one of them actually became Patriarch of Constantinople and briefly tried to make the Orthodox Church Calvinist. . . .

hhmmmm interesting…

Peace
James

 

[Riverton_Grammy]

Is calvanism biblical ? And I found this about it below but what does that say about us ?
thinkaboutit77.hubpages.com/hub/Is-The-Doctrine-Of-Calvinism-Biblical-Or-Not

Do your homework and history shows us that Calvinism doesn’t really come from John Calvin it comes from Augustine (one of the fathers of the Roman Catholic Church and called the father of the inquisition.)
Calvin quotes Augustine in his “Institutes on the Christian Religion” over 400 times.
Charles Spurgeon said, “Calvin derived it [Calvinism] mainly from the writings of Augstine.” (as cited in Dave Hunt’s book on Calvinism “What Love is This?”.
John Calvin admitted that if he wanted to write a confession of his faith he could only do so only with the writings of Augustine.
D. James Kennedy said in his book “Why I Am a Presbyterian” on pg 193 “I am a Presbyterian because I believe that Presbyterianism is the purest form of Calvinism”
RC Sproul said, “Augustinianism is presently called Calvinism or Reformed Theology”.
Calvinists agree that Calvin is not the originator of Calvinism, but Augustine was the one who came up with these ideas.
**Catholic Connection: Luther was an Augustinian monk and Calvin immersed himself in the writings of Augustine. The 2 best known fathers of the Protestant Reformation [Luther, Calvin] were heavily influenced by Augustine the devout Roman Catholic.

During my time in RCIA, in the parish I belonged to at the time, we were blessed to have not just one, but many, priests (because we were such a large parish) including one who was much loved and “retired in residence” whose time was mostly spent saying Mass and hearing confessions. He was rightly reputed to be the most learned of all our priests. And he affirmatively stated that Calvinism is not Catholic.

Calvanism was one of many Protestant rejections of the Catholic faith during the so-called “Reformation”. There were problems within the practice of the Catholic faith at the time, and no one is disputing that, because humans are fallible, while God is not. Human fallibility has made a name for itself throughout every age, but that does not change God. There is only one thing God cannot do: He cannot lie.

In my opinion, the restrictions envisioned in Calvinism effectively restrict God to a human construct of what humans believe God should do/should be able to do, which is something one might expect from a faith that was founded by a fallible human (John Calvin) instead of by God (such as the Catholic faith, founded by Jesus Christ.). Placing restrictions on God is a fundamental error. God is God. God does not view eternity as we do. As such, God may not view the vagaries of life as we do. It is human arrogance that places such restrictions on God.

Further, in more practical, everyday terms, I have been in churches where Calvinism was the “norm”. It was filled with very good, very well-meaning people, so I do not mean to discount them or their faith. But they truly believed that if someone did not believe EXACTLY as they did, that person would go to Hell. And, presumably, they expected God to back them up on that. The Bible says that God will not do so. God gets to pick, not us.

I applaud you on your RCIA journey. I applaud your search and your in-depth research. In the end, I trust you will find the Catholic faith will appeal not just to your soul but to your reason. I suggest you read the Early Church Fathers (beyond Augustine) and read Aquinas too (a bit later than the Early Church Fathers!) Many very intellectual people, including Aquinas, but also including the current Pope, are also Catholics. The current Pope’s intellect is formidable and a joy to read and study.

 

[Contarini]

Fair enough…But looking at the title of the thread…
It could hardly be said that something was “biblical” it it’s sole source was something other than the bible…

That doesn’t make sense–it assumes that Augustine’s views are not themselves Biblical.

Of course Calvin would say that he derived his views from the Bible–and that that was why he disagreed with Augustine on certain points (which is why the statement ascribed to him, if he made it, was hyperbole). But he regarded Augustine’s theology as itself deeply Biblical for the most part.

Again - trying to address the Thread title in my response…
In said response I am assuming Calvin held to the concept of Sola Scriptura. If he did then his reliance would need to be on Scripture and not on solely on Augustine (rhetorical exaggeration or not…)
Scripture holds that one NOT hold to particular “camps” or what we might call “cults of personality”…It holds that we belong to Christ and that we listen to the Church…

Sure. But I referred to Fr. McInerny because he was quoted to me as saying that St. Thomas’s writings basically contain all theological truth and we just need to understand them. While I disagree with Fr. McInerny on this point, and I’m sure many Catholics would as well, his opinion doesn’t make him “not a Christian.”

Again, Calvin did in fact disagree with Augustine and certainly did not derive all of his theology from Augustine. But Augustine was the single biggest theological influence on how he read the Bible. Nothing in itself wrong with that–Augustine is probably the single most important theologian after the Bible in all of Christianity (certainly in Western Christianity, with the possible exception of Aquinas).

The Reformers routinely exaggerated their dependence on Augustine, because Augustine was a revered figure in Catholic theology and the more they could claim the “shelter” of his authority, the more orthodox their views would appear.

In the case of the early Lutherans, this arguably reached the point of dishonesty. See this letter from Melanchthon to Johann Brenz, together with some argument between myself and Dave Armstrong on just how dishonest Melanchthon was being (scroll down to read the letter itself)!

For the Reformed, and perhaps for some Lutherans like Brenz (a south German–the theological disagreement really did follow roughly geographical lines, with the north Germans being the most “Lutheran,” the German Swiss being “Zwinglians,” and the south Germans generally falling somewhere in between), the dependence on Augustine was more thorough and more sincere. But there were still differences, which they tended to downplay.

An important point is that the term “sola Scriptura” did not exist in the sixteenth century, and the programmatic use of it as some kind of absolute principle didn’t either. The Reformers claimed the supreme authority of Scripture over tradition to justify the places where their interpretation of Scripture clashed with established Church teaching. But they were happy to use the authority of the Fathers whenever they could.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Either I havn’t found this particular writting of Augustine or you must be drastically misinterpreting his writtings. Do you have any particular references where he tought any part of TULIP?

The first place where Augustine clearly expresses these views is the “Questions in Response to Simplician” of 397. Many of the anti-Pelagian writings also address these issues. Most obviously the treatise “On the Predestination of the Saints,” but that’s just one of many. The Enchiridion has a brief and succinct treatment of the question. The City of God refers to and presupposes Augustine’s ideas on predestination in a number of places (see the beginning of Book 15, for instance), but he doesn’t lay the doctrine out as clearly there as in the other works I’ve referred to.

The Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on Augustine’s teaching does its best to bring Augustine into conformity with what would later be called a “Molinist” view (in which God chooses the way of offering grace to an elect individual which He knows will be effective in moving that person’s will). Even if this argument is correct, though, that still leaves it clear that Augustine held to predestination “ante praevisa merita” (the article on Predestination in the CE tries to hint that this isn’t really clear in Augustine, but I think that’s just wrong, as you can see from the article on Augustine’s teaching). That would be the “P” of TULIP. The CE seems to be arguing that he didn’t hold to the “I” and maybe not even to the “U.” The article on Augustine’s teaching argues that he didn’t think fallen humans were incapable of choosing the good, only that they found it very difficult. That doesn’t seem right to me based on my own reading of Augustine, but the CE cites a work (the Opus Imperfectum contra Julianum) to which I don’t have access. It sounds to me as if they may be taking a description of the condition of regenerate people in this life and applying it to the unregenerate, but it’s also possible that Augustine used language of “difficulty” to avoid the charge of Manicheanism. It’s pretty clear from other writings that for him this “difficulty” was insuperable apart from grace. Fallen human beings will always choose to sin unless God’s grace moves them otherwise.

Also “nuances” are important. It can be the difference between saying that Christ came to save all who would respond and desire to be saved and saying that Christ came to save only a small specific group of people and anyone else is condemned to hell even if they desire to be saved.

Well, I don’t know of anyone who holds the latter view. Certainly Calvinists do not.

The view of both Augustine and Calvin is that fallen human beings do not desire to repent and believe unless God’s grace moves them to do so. And all those whom God has chosen will repent and believe.

Calvin is “blunter” in the way he puts this–he’s also relatively more systematic than Augustine.

No dispute that nuances are important. But if you treat the nuanced differences between Augustine and Calvinism as important, you must treat the differences between Augustine and later Catholic orthodoxy as important also. You have to be consistent.

Note: I’m not claiming that Augustine was a Protestant or that Catholics are in any way behaving inconsistently in claiming him as a great and orthodox Doctor of the Church. It’s a common phenomenon for an earlier Doctor of the Church to hold opinions that would later be defined as unorthodox. Augustine’s rejection of the “manducatio infidelium” (which according to Gary Macy was shared even by the early scholastics) would be one such example.

Edwin

 

[JRKH]

That doesn’t make sense–it assumes that Augustine’s views are not themselves Biblical.

Of course Calvin would say that he derived his views from the Bible–and that that was why he disagreed with Augustine on certain points (which is why the statement ascribed to him, if he made it, was hyperbole). But he regarded Augustine’s theology as itself deeply Biblical for the most part.

Sure. But I referred to Fr. McInerny because he was quoted to me as saying that St. Thomas’s writings basically contain all theological truth and we just need to understand them. While I disagree with Fr. McInerny on this point, and I’m sure many Catholics would as well, his opinion doesn’t make him “not a Christian.”

Again, Calvin did in fact disagree with Augustine and certainly did not derive all of his theology from Augustine. But Augustine was the single biggest theological influence on how he read the Bible. Nothing in itself wrong with that–Augustine is probably the single most important theologian after the Bible in all of Christianity (certainly in Western Christianity, with the possible exception of Aquinas).

The Reformers routinely exaggerated their dependence on Augustine, because Augustine was a revered figure in Catholic theology and the more they could claim the “shelter” of his authority, the more orthodox their views would appear.

In the case of the early Lutherans, this arguably reached the point of dishonesty. See this letter from Melanchthon to Johann Brenz, together with some argument between myself and Dave Armstrong on just how dishonest Melanchthon was being (scroll down to read the letter itself)!

For the Reformed, and perhaps for some Lutherans like Brenz (a south German–the theological disagreement really did follow roughly geographical lines, with the north Germans being the most “Lutheran,” the German Swiss being “Zwinglians,” and the south Germans generally falling somewhere in between), the dependence on Augustine was more thorough and more sincere. But there were still differences, which they tended to downplay.

An important point is that the term “sola Scriptura” did not exist in the sixteenth century, and the programmatic use of it as some kind of absolute principle didn’t either. The Reformers claimed the supreme authority of Scripture over tradition to justify the places where their interpretation of Scripture clashed with established Church teaching. But they were happy to use the authority of the Fathers whenever they could.

Edwin

:aok:…:thankyou:

Peace
James

 

[stewstew03]

… And all those whom God has chosen will repent and believe.

But (it’s worth noting) not all will persevere to the end…

 

[Contarini]

But (it’s worth noting) not all will persevere to the end…

In both Augustine and Calvin all the elect will persevere.

In Augustine there’s a distinction between those who are chosen to receive grace and those who are chosen to persevere. Some people do repent and believe (and/or are baptized in infancy) but do not persevere.

This is the major difference between Augustine and Calvin with regard to election, as i see it. Calvin and Zwingli and the other early Reformed theologians “simplified” the Augustinian picture by arguing that only the elect experience regeneration–only they repent and believe.

In Zwingli the prioritization of election was pretty radical–he thought that an elect person who never heard the Gospel could be saved without faith.

Calvin rejected this view, being relatively much closer to Luther.

Edwin

 

[stewstew03]

…This is the major difference between Augustine and Calvin with regard to election, as i see it…

(My reason for mentioning it.)

From what I understand, and you may be able to elucidate Edwin, Augustine recognized the possibility of baptized Christians “losing” their salvation (i.e., those whom the grace of perseverance had not been given).

 

[rinnie]

It’s not that simple.

If I presented myself to the Catholic Church of Augustine’s day, I would not be asked

1. if I believed in the Immaculate Conception
2. if I believed in papal infallibility
3. if I believed in transubstantiation (Augustine’s own language about the Real Presence is at times hard to square with transubstantiation, though that doesn’t mean that it was “Protestant”)
4. if I accepted the practice of indulgences

And so on–there are lots more examples.

Edwin

This is true Edwin, it would already be assumed that you did.

The Immaculate Conception is nothing new, it was always believed by the Church. As with the Pope he was always believed to have the keys to the Kingdom, The Apostles never had trouble with it.

THe Eucharist was pretty clear. Jesus even said it is a hard saying. Actually it is at that time when Jesus himself stated what the Eucharist truly is, that the devil entered Judas. Judas could not accept it, He snapped!!

And indulgneces are still upheld today.

Actually the station of the cross are still considered an indulgence.

 

[Contarini]

(My reason for mentioning it.)

From what I understand, and you may be able to elucidate Edwin, Augustine recognized the possibility of baptized Christians “losing” their salvation (i.e., those whom the grace of perseverance had not been given).

Exactly.

The Reformed doctrine of perseverance necessitates their denial of baptismal regeneration. This is often forgotten because in Protestant circles more people deny baptismal regeneration than hold to perseverance/eternal security.

Wesley and the Lutheran Pietists could hold to a form of baptismal regeneration because they believed that a person could “sin away” the grace they had received in infancy. When Wesley asked his hearers, “are you born again now,” he wasn’t implying that the grace of baptism had meant nothing. (Although, to be fair, he did remove language from the Anglican Articles and Prayerbook implying baptismal regeneration when he adapted these texts for American Methodists.)

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

The Immaculate Conception is nothing new, it was always believed by the Church.

The historical evidence for this is severely lacking. Catholic apologists who want to prove otherwise are reduced to absurd prooftexting, taking any use of the term “immaculate” about Mary as proof that the Immaculate Conception was believed.

But there’s no need to prove otherwise. The IC as a doctrine didn’t make any sense–it wasn’t an issue–until the doctrine of original sin was developed, which only really happened with Augustine. Augustine made a statement to the effect: “Who knows what grace was given Mary in order to overcome the effects of the Fall?” essentially leaving the question open for later development.

So no–there’s no historical reason to believe that Catholics in 400 would have assumed anything about what one believed about the Immaculate Conception–the very question wouldn’t really have made sense.

As with the Pope he was always believed to have the keys to the Kingdom, The Apostles never had trouble with it.

You’re arguing from silence, assuming that there was something to “have trouble with.”

The doctrine of papal authority, again, developed slowly over centuries. I’m not saying anything controversial in terms of Catholic doctrine, as I understand it.

THe Eucharist was pretty clear. Jesus even said it is a hard saying. Actually it is at that time when Jesus himself stated what the Eucharist truly is, that the devil entered Judas. Judas could not accept it, He snapped!!

The idea that Judas apostasized because he couldn’t handle the doctrine of the Real Presence is pious fantasy.

The early Church’s language on the Eucharist is quite vague–they clearly believed it was the Body and Blood of Jesus, but plenty of development was necessary to articulate how.

The “metabolic” view (essentially transubstantiation without the technical definitions) first clearly appears in the fourth century. I’ve heard that Augustine may use this language occasionally, but mostly he didn’t. Mostly he spoke of the Eucharist as a “figure”–and he clearly said that the wicked do not receive the Body and Blood but “the sacrament of the Body and Blood.” That doesn’t mean that he denied the Real Presence, simply that language and ideas about the Real Presence were still somewhat loose. Augustine never hinted at any disagreement with Ambrose, who did hold a “metabolic” view.

And indulgneces are still upheld today.

I know that. But no one had thought of them in 400!

Edwin

 

[stewstew03]

The historical evidence for this is severely lacking. Catholic apologists who want to prove otherwise are reduced to absurd prooftexting, taking any use of the term “immaculate” about Mary as proof that the Immaculate Conception was believed.

But there’s no need to prove otherwise. The IC as a doctrine didn’t make any sense–it wasn’t an issue–until the doctrine of original sin was developed, which only really happened with Augustine. Augustine made a statement to the effect: “Who knows what grace was given Mary in order to overcome the effects of the Fall?” essentially leaving the question open for later development.

So no–there’s no historical reason to believe that Catholics in 400 would have assumed anything about what one believed about the Immaculate Conception–the very question wouldn’t really have made sense.

Yes, but given what the Church Fathers believed about Mary (e.g., her position as Theotókos) it’s not a far leap to the dogmatic assertion that she was immaculately conceived. Ephrem the Syrian writes in the 4th century that “just as there is no blemish in the Lord, there is no blemish in Mary” [paraphrased].

I agree, though, there doesn’t seem to be much in the way of documentation. Still, there’s no doubt in my mind that a lot of discussion and prayerful contemplation occurred well before Ineffabilis Deus was written.

 

[Contarini]

Yes, but given what the Church Fathers believed about Mary (e.g., her position as Theotókos) it’s not a far leap to the dogmatic assertion that she was immaculately conceived. Ephrem the Syrian writes in the 4th century that “just as there is no blemish in the Lord, there is no blemish in Mary” [paraphrased].

What you add in the concept of original sin, something like the Immaculate Conception obviously makes sense given patristic Marian piety, indeed. And of course, as Catholic apologists rightly point out, the debate in the Middle Ages wasn’t over whether Mary was saved from original sin before birth (everyone agreed that she was) but whether it happened at or just after conception.

I agree, though, there doesn’t seem to be much in the way of documentation. Still, there’s no doubt in my mind that a lot of discussion and prayerful contemplation occurred well before Ineffabilis Deus was written.

No dispute there. The Franciscans had basically won by the end of the Middle Ages, as I understand the matter.

Edwin

 

[Prosmith]

Yes, but given what the Church Fathers believed about Mary (e.g., her position as Theotókos

) it’s not a far leap to the dogmatic assertion that she was immaculately conceived. Ephrem the Syrian writes in the 4th century that “just as there is no blemish in the Lord, there is no blemish in Mary” [paraphrased]. ??? The Marian dogmas didn’t exsist in the Early Church. In fact, many ECFs debunked many statements that began the fueling of many of those dogmas. Ambrose, Aquinas etc.

 

[mgoforth]

But there’s no need to prove otherwise. The IC as a doctrine didn’t make any sense–it wasn’t an issue–until the doctrine of original sin was developed, which only really happened with Augustine.

I would disagree. Original sin was believed from the beginning, and certainly prior to Augustine. St. Irenaeus used it as a rebuttal of Gnosticism in the 2nd century. Augustine went into more depth, but original sin is a fundamental doctrine from the time of Christ.

But I believe St. Paul was actually the one who developed it, here:

“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned…” Romans 5:12

…and here:

“For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” 1 Corinthians 15:21-22

So no–there’s no historical reason to believe that Catholics in 400 would have assumed anything about what one believed about the Immaculate Conception–the very question wouldn’t really have made sense.

Again, there are earlier examples of saints teaching the purity of Mary - St Irenaeus and St Ambrose - they just didn’t go into as much depth as Augustine. But to say that talking to a 3rd or 4th century Christian about whether Mary was sinless from birth wouldn’t have made sense is not true. The idea was there from the beginning, Augustine just elaborated and defined it.

The doctrine of papal authority, again, developed slowly over centuries. I’m not saying anything controversial in terms of Catholic doctrine, as I understand it.

Yes, the formal definition developed slowly into what it is today, but the concept was defined by Christ in his commands to St Peter.

The idea that Judas apostasized because he couldn’t handle the doctrine of the Real Presence is pious fantasy.

I think “pious fantasy” is a little strong when you read the end of the sixth chapter of John:

“From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve. Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.” Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)” John 6:66-71

It’s not a doctrine of the Church…but it does fit the facts. Incidentally, this passage is further evidence of Peter’s supremacy. He answers for all twelve, which happens in other passages of the Gospels.

 

[Contarini]

??? The Marian dogmas didn’t exsist in the Early Church.

 

[mgoforth]

??? The Marian dogmas didn’t exsist in the Early Church. In fact, many ECFs debunked many statements that began the fueling of many of those dogmas. Ambrose, Aquinas etc.

 

[Contarini]

I would disagree. Original sin was believed from the beginning, and certainly prior to Augustine. St. Irenaeus used it as a rebuttal of Gnosticism in the 2nd century.

Example? It depends of course by what you mean when you say “original sin.”

Augustine went into more depth, but original sin is a fundamental doctrine from the time of Christ.

As with the development of any doctrine, the principles were certainly there. But key elements of the doctrine were not in place before Augustine.

But I believe St. Paul was actually the one who developed it, here:

“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned…” Romans 5:12

“All have sinned.” That’s not original sin, which pre-exists the commission of any actual sin.

According to original sin, people sin because they are sinners.

…and here:

“For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” 1 Corinthians 15:21-22

Again, note the word “death.”

This is not the developed doctrine of original sin either.

Again, there are earlier examples of saints teaching the purity of Mary - St Irenaeus and St Ambrose

Sure.

But to say that talking to a 3rd or 4th century Christian about whether Mary was sinless from birth wouldn’t have made sense is not true.

Indeed–nor did I say that. Although some early Christians did speak as if Mary sinned–at least Chrysostom ascribes a lack of faith to her.

Saying that Mary never committed a sin is not the same thing as the Immaculate Conception.

I think “pious fantasy” is a little strong when you read the end of the sixth chapter of John:

“From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve. Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.” Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)” John 6:66-71

OK–how about “imaginative speculation.” Judas is mentioned here as a “devil,” but nothing whatever is said about his reaction to what Jesus has been saying about the Bread of Life.

Edwin

 

[Prosmith]

Prosmith;9653792:

Incorrect. Both St. Justin Martyr and St. Irenaeus (2nd century) speak of Mary as the “new Eve” who, through obedience, helped usher in salvation. Please cite a reference where Ambrose and Aquinas “debunked” Marian theology.

The Immaculate Conception was not dogma of the Church in the 2nd century nor was perpetual virginity of Mary. Show where it was declared doctrine and dogma of the Catholic church in the 2nd century. As far as Ambrose and Aquinas, I can give you more examples of doctors of the Church who disclaimed what became Roman dogma.

 

[Prosmith]

Of course you can find Fathers who made statements that contradicted what later developed as doctrine/dogma. That’s true on just about any doctrine you pick.