"Pure and undefiled..."

[Nine_Two]

It is a myth that Constantine made Christianity the state religion. He certainly patronized it himself, but that is altogether different. Christianity wasn’t the state religion of the Empire until Theodosius.

 

[GKC]

Hoo, boy, do books take up room. They’ve been taking up room on me for around 55 years. About to build a large addition on the house, to be the primary library. Was in book retail, new and rare, for around 11-12 years. Used to be on the CBD mailing list, for the old newspaper type catalogs.

Currently I just finished a two part novel, in pulp tradition, partially written by a friend of mine. Before that, an unsatisfactory account of the Battle of Kasserine Pass, and a study of Montgomery, as commander. I tend to read almost exclusively on the WWII Pacific theater, in my WWII reading, which is my current focus. So I’m consciously doing some ETO and Africa books. Next up is THE UNKNOWN BATTLE: METZ, 1944/Kemp.

My book accumulating, and serious collecting (not the same thing), are concentrated in around 20 areas, of which military is the most extensive and oldest, Chesterton and related authors the most fervent. Church history, Tudor history, stuff like that, are in the 2nd tier of my passions. Relatively speaking.

Always glad to discuss books. One can never have too many books, just too few bookshelves.

Pax, frater.

GKC

Actually I err, my copy of Early Christian Doctrine is cloth, the 1968 printing of the 2nd edition. My copy of his creeds book is PB. You made me get out of my chair so now you owe me. (Ha Ha).

Having the ECFs on CD is a good thing because the 38 vol set takes up a lot of room. I love books and all but it’s still an imposing set. I bought my set in 3 installments over a period of 2 years. In my opinion, the ANFs are the most important and can be purchased from CBD at a very reasonable price.

It is nice to know that there are like minded people who love to study out there. I’m a laymen by the way. I’m planning to go after a graduate degree in theology or church history when I retire which is in about 10 years. My reason is just due to the fact I love to study and learn.

Nice chatting with you. What are you reading right now? I’ve got 2 books going right now, The Christian Tradition (vol. 1) -J. Pelikan and Continuity and Discontinuity - J. Feinberg ed.

 

[Jon_Hus]

Currently I just finished a two part novel, in pulp tradition, partially written by a friend of mine. Before that, an unsatisfactory account of the Battle of Kasserine Pass, and a study of Montgomery, as commander. I tend to read almost exclusively on the WWII Pacific theater, in my WWII reading, which is my current focus. So I’m consciously doing some ETO and Africa books. Next up is THE UNKNOWN BATTLE: METZ, 1944/Kemp.

Always glad to discuss books. One can never have too many books, just too few bookshelves.

Pax, frater.

GKC

I forgot to mention, I’m also reading Coddingtons Gettysburg for the 3rd time. I live in PA and thinking about a road trip.

 

[Contarini]

I forgot to mention, I’m also reading Coddingtons Gettysburg for the 3rd time. I live in PA and thinking about a road trip.

I visited Gettysburg briefly this summer (hadn’t been there for about a quarter of a century!). I didn’t have a lot of time, and my traveling companions had less patience for battlefields than I did (my wife is not into military history, and my daughter, who expressed great interest in going to a place “where people fighted each other,” is only three). We needed to be in Philadelphia by nightfall, and my daughter was interested in a buggy ride (which she got–we went from battlefields to pacifist Amish in an hour or so–the glories of Pennsylvania!). So we just spent some time on the site of the first day’s fighting–my daughter and I had a sword-fight with sticks in the shadow of the memorial to General Reynolds. Enough of an introduction to military history for a three-year-old, I think!

Edwin

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

​

W

hat I was thinking was the doctrines of the CC at the time were in the process of development. I base this on my study of the ANFs which would lead one to conclude that doctrines did develop over time. Of course a debate for a different day. Not trying to put words in your mouth but I think that you would agree though once the churches left private homes and went to public buildings (the result of Constantine’s efforts), the practices did change somewhat.

Practices are not the same as doctrines.

If you are familiar with ANF would you also be familiar with Cardinal Newman’s “On the Developement of Christian Doctrine”?

Justin Martyr in his dialogue with Trypho (ca. 150) had laid out the Catholic Doctrine which reads no different than that which the Church explains in the Catechism. Mass by Justin’s time had already moved from small private homes to the larger homes of wealthy Romans to accomodate the numbers that the Church had baptized into Christ. But the doctrine-what we call the Deposit of the Faith-while it had,because of such great lights like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyon, Ignatius of Antioch, & Polycarp of Smyrna, etc. had developed and our understanding of it was further enlightened, it remained unchanged. The Mass was central to Christian life, Baptism saved us, the Eucharist was Christ’s real presence, etc., etc.

If you would be so kind as to answer some of my questions and if I’m given some refrences to previously made requests, I will return the favor by providing quotes from JND Kelly and others to back up this claim.

Boettner, Roman Catholicism, 11:
“thosands of people who still were pagans pressed into the church in order to gain special advantages and favors that went with such membership. They came in in far greater numbers than could be instructed or assimilated. Having been used to the more elaborate pagan rituals, they were not satisfied with the simple Christian worship but began to introduce their heathen beliefs and practices. Gradually, through the neglect of the Bible and the ignorance of the people, more and more heathen ideas were introduced until the church became more heathen than Christian.”

The caveat being that all of those pesky and peculiar Catholic Doctrines should only be found after Constantine legalized the Church. But we know this not to be true. How do you explan this?

 

[GKC]

I forgot to mention, I’m also reading Coddingtons Gettysburg for the 3rd time. I live in PA and thinking about a road trip.

I have a strange, but definite, lack of interest in the Civil War. And I used to attend the church where the first Secession Convention met. Go figure.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You are the most unpredictable guy in this entire forum, GKC! I would’ve thought you’d have loved the Civil War!? You’re into nukes and WWII but not the Civil War? Nat Turner doesn’t do it for ya, but the Enola Gay does! I think Secession Conventions aren’t your speed, Jim. You’re more of a Comic Convention kinda guy…

My mom’s in the Daughters of the American Revolution and she has traced geneaology back deep into the early middle ages. She’s totally into it and just loves earning her medals. She’s a big Revolution and Civil War fan. My family line is made up of mostly Cromwellian Protestants. Captain George Dennison, one of my most famous ancestors, was a Puritan minister who left the New World to go back to England and fight with Oliver LOL! I have Methodist, Puritan, Anglican ancestry and yet my grandmother’s side is Irish Catholic…what a combo! LOL

I have a strange, but definite, lack of interest in the Civil War. And I used to attend the church where the first Secession Convention met. Go figure.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I have a four, three, and two year old. My eldest son, Luke, who is starting kindergarten tomorrow, said tonight to me, “Daddy, Lois Lane doesn’t know Clark Kent is Superman.” I said, “that’s right.” He replies, “does Clark Kent know he’s Superman?” Then my daughter was talking with Caleb, our little guy. My wife asked Caleb who turned into Robin on Batman and Veronica interjected “Dick Raisin!” (instead of Dick Grayson) LOL… LOL I miss the days when life was simple and I was asking crazy questions like that. Nowdays I’m worried about Anglican and Catholic theology, etc. I miss the Clark Kent/Bruce Wayne days!

I visited Gettysburg briefly this summer (hadn’t been there for about a quarter of a century!). I didn’t have a lot of time, and my traveling companions had less patience for battlefields than I did (my wife is not into military history, and my daughter, who expressed great interest in going to a place “where people fighted each other,” is only three). We needed to be in Philadelphia by nightfall, and my daughter was interested in a buggy ride (which she got–we went from battlefields to pacifist Amish in an hour or so–the glories of Pennsylvania!). So we just spent some time on the site of the first day’s fighting–my daughter and I had a sword-fight with sticks in the shadow of the memorial to General Reynolds. Enough of an introduction to military history for a three-year-old, I think!

Edwin

 

[Nine_Two]

I have a four, three, and two year old. My eldest son, Luke, who is starting kindergarten tomorrow, said tonight to me, “Daddy, Lois Lane doesn’t know Clark Kent is Superman.” I said, “that’s right.” He replies, “does Clark Kent know he’s Superman?” Then my daughter was talking with Caleb, our little guy. My wife asked Caleb who turned into Robin on Batman and Veronica interjected “Dick Raisin!” (instead of Dick Grayson) LOL… LOL I miss the days when life was simple and I was asking crazy questions like that. Nowdays I’m worried about Anglican and Catholic theology, etc. I miss the Clark Kent/Bruce Wayne days!

I listened to Matthew 18 being read today.

That’s the chapter that says we’re supposed to approach Christ like little children.

Yeah, I wish it were so easy.

 

[GKC]

You are the most unpredictable guy in this entire forum, GKC! I would’ve thought you’d have loved the Civil War!? You’re into nukes and WWII but not the Civil War? Nat Turner doesn’t do it for ya, but the Enola Gay does! I think Secession Conventions aren’t your speed, Jim. You’re more of a Comic Convention kinda guy…

My mom’s in the Daughters of the American Revolution and she has traced geneaology back deep into the early middle ages. She’s totally into it and just loves earning her medals. She’s a big Revolution and Civil War fan. My family line is made up of mostly Cromwellian Protestants. Captain George Dennison, one of my most famous ancestors, was a Puritan minister who left the New World to go back to England and fight with Oliver LOL! I have Methodist, Puritan, Anglican ancestry and yet my grandmother’s side is Irish Catholic…what a combo! LOL

I can understand such an interest. It hooked my wife. And she adn my sister have traced my mother’s family back to around 1790 and a plantation in the family, on a sea island.

But yes, nucs, yes super-dreadnoughts, no, Civil War. Yes, comic conventions.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Brother, you and me both! The Scriptures do tell us that the Lord will confound those who believe they are wise and brilliant. Maybe we should all simplify things for ourselves and stop being so heady! LOL

I listened to Matthew 18 being read today.

That’s the chapter that says we’re supposed to approach Christ like little children.

Yeah, I wish it were so easy.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

WWII yes, nukes no, Tolkien yes, Herbert yes, 007 yes (except for Brosnan), Lewis no, Chesterton no, Civil War sometimes, Revolution nah, guitars heck yeah (preferably Fender unless we’re talking a Gibson ES 175 or 335), baseball (only when the giants aren’t falling apart which is defnitely not now), classic Mopar muscle cars yes…I can’t stop! Romero zombie films, bring it! i can’t stop!

I can understand such an interest. It hooked my wife. And she adn my sister have traced my mother’s family back to around 1790 and a plantation in the family, on a sea island.

But yes, nucs, yes super-dreadnoughts, no, Civil War. Yes, comic conventions.

GKC

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

No, but to accept something just on someone’s say-so generally requires infallibility. Why else would they change their mind based on what a theologian said 500 years ago?

So you demand infallibility from news organizations before you accept the news they report on? Teachers need be “infallible” before teaching a subject to students in the classroom?

The line of reasoning is logically inconsistent. We accept in faith what people say because we believe that while they may not be completely infallible on a subject or even in general we hope that they have the integrity to express only that which they know. To demand “proof” or “infallibility” before assenting in faith to what they are saying means that you don’t trust that person to tell the truth.

So by rejecting Calvin’s statement about the Church’s history on the basis that he was not “infallible” you are asserting that Calvin is not to be trusted. If that is true what makes Calvin either more or less “infallible” in his other ideas, especially regarding theology?

Now the fact that the Reformers didn’t buy the Constantinian Fall" theory may influence some fundamentalists to question it. So it’s worth using, but it doesn’t refute their view all on its own. Furthermore, many fundamentalists prefer the Anabaptists to the “magisterial Reformers,” and the Anabaptists did generally believe that the Church became corrupt in Constantine’s time.

And that assertion begs the question.

I’m also puzzled by why you cite Calvin as a “historian.” No historian 500 years ago, writing about things that happened a thousand years previously, is going to be taken too seriously as an authority. And Calvin wasn’t really a historian at all, but a theologian.

Finally, when Calvin said that he was giving a ballpark figure. He didn’t think that the Church was free of all error before A.D. 600, and he didn’t think that it suddenly fell after A.D. 600. But he considered Pope St. Gregory the Great to have been essentially orthodox and a good model for what a Pope ought to be like. After his time, in Calvin’s view, things really started to go downhill.

Edwin

Read the post. I didn’t cite Calvin as a historian. I was making the argument that when any **other ** historian makes a statement about secular history there is no demand that that historian be “infallible”, but when it regards a statement about the historicity of the Catholic Church all of a sudden infallibility is required? Its logically inconsistent.

Sorry, but neither Calvin nor I claimed “free from all error”; please read the post.

His statement was that the Church remained “pure and undefiled.” Many errors popped up as men tried to make a name for themselves within the Church. But at every turn the Church stepped up and condemned these heresies and defended the true Deposit of the Faith.

The question still stands: If the Catholic Christian Church sold out to paganism at the time of Constantine why do we still find peculiarly Catholic writings from the first, second, third centuries on?

And why is Calvin not to be taken at his word when he speaks of this Church being “pure and undefiled” for the first 600 years of her existence?

 

[Nine_Two]

WWII yes, nukes no, Tolkien yes, Herbert yes, 007 yes (except for Brosnan), Lewis no, Chesterton no, Civil War sometimes, Revolution nah, guitars heck yeah (preferably Fender unless we’re talking a Gibson ES 175 or 335), baseball (only when the giants aren’t falling apart which is defnitely not now), classic Mopar muscle cars yes…I can’t stop! Romero zombie films, bring it! i can’t stop!

Early Herbert only. Recognition of anything after Children is pure heresy!

And even Children is pushing it.

 

[GKC]

Early Herbert only. Recognition of anything after Children is pure heresy!

And even Children is pushing it.

I couldn’t make it past MESSIAH.

GKC

 

[Nine_Two]

I couldn’t make it past MESSIAH.

GKC

I enjoyed Messiah, though not as much as the original, but I think it was because of its examination of the concept of messiah - I was going through a Crisis of Faith when I first read it, so that was of particular interest.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You’re both nuts. I like Dune, Messiah, Children, and God Emperor was a JOY! I loved it! Chapterhouse was rancid LOL…Heretics was ok…

 

[Nine_Two]

You’re both nuts. I like Dune, Messiah, Children, and God Emperor was a JOY! I loved it! Chapterhouse was rancid LOL…Heretics was ok…

Actually with God Emperor it wasn’t so much that I didn’t like the story, it just didn’t feel like Dune.

I forget if it was Chapterhouse or Heretics I actively disliked. The other one just bored me. I think I hated Heretics and was bored by Chapterhouse.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You’re putting me in the mood for Sardukar, the Guild, Bene Gesserits, and chakobsa! “Long live the fighters!”

God Emperor and Children were great. I know they didn’t feel like the Dune of the first two books but G.E. is set way in the future so it’s a different world really…I liked it.

I love the Dune Encycopedia. Have you ever gotten your hands on one? I used to read it in high school in the library. I got one in pristine condition in around 2004 for $75. They’re worth a TON now. They discontinued them in the early 90’s or late 80’s. Good times!

Actually with God Emperor it wasn’t so much that I didn’t like the story, it just didn’t feel like Dune.

I forget if it was Chapterhouse or Heretics I actively disliked. The other one just bored me. I think I hated Heretics and was bored by Chapterhouse.

 

[Contarini]

So you demand infallibility from news organizations before you accept the news they report on?

No, but I try to get my news from at least two different sources before I reach any firm conclusions about what is going on. If it’s a source that I have reason to think trustworthy, and an issue that is not controversial, and my time is limited, then yes, I would accept it just on one news source’s “say-so.”

So you’re right in calling me out on my blanket statement, but in context what I said applies. There’s a huge difference between something like “the Dow Jones Average was such-and-such today” and “the Church was pure and undefiled before 600.” What I should have said is, “to change one’s mind on a controversial subject based only on someone’s say-so would require infallibility.” If I think I have reason to believe that things are one way, and a news report tells me that they are different, then I’m going to look for confirmation. Again, this will depend on how important and controversial the issue is.

This is one of those conversations that really disturbs me, because it makes me suspect that most people just pick a “trusted” source and accept everything it says. I’ve seen indications of this before. I don’t see why someone would do this.

Still, you’re right that I should have expressed myself more carefully.

Teachers need be “infallible” before teaching a subject to students in the classroom?

No, but no good teacher expects students to believe something just on the teacher’s say-so. I can’t imagine behaving in such a tyrannical manner toward my students. My primary job is to give them the resources to explore the subject further for themselves, and check on what I am telling them. Of course I expect them to give me a certain amount of trust. But if my students come to my class believing one thing, and leave it believing another just because I told them so, then either I or the student (or both) have failed miserably.

The line of reasoning is logically inconsistent. We accept in faith what people say because we believe that while they may not be completely infallible on a subject or even in general we hope that they have the integrity to express only that which they know. To demand “proof” or “infallibility” before assenting in faith to what they are saying means that you don’t trust that person to tell the truth.

That makes no sense to me. Everyone makes mistakes. So of course if someone tells me something, even if the person is someone I trust, I’m going to want further information before making up my mind. At least, that will be true if the subject is important and if I previously believed something different.

Of course an opinion expressed by someone I trust will influence me strongly–but it will influence me to inform myself further and seek confirmation. I would hope that this quote from Calvin might influence some Protestants in that direction. But it doesn’t prove or disprove anything.

So by rejecting Calvin’s statement about the Church’s history on the basis that he was not “infallible” you are asserting that Calvin is not to be trusted.

Well, personally I don’t trust Calvin on history further than I can throw him (nor do I put much reliance on him as a theological authority–even within Protestantism I prefer Luther, Wesley, and Barth, and I give much more weight to the Fathers, the Byzantine theologians, the medieval Western scholastics up to and including Aquinas, and modern neo-patristic Catholic and Orthodox theologians, than to any Protestant theologian). Not because he was deliberately dishonest, but because he was a busy religious leader whose interest in history was for what he could make of it to further his theological agenda. Also, no modern historian would give much credence to any historical claim made by anyone in the sixteenth century about anything that had happened centuries earlier. Why on earth do so? There are plenty of better sources. Renaissance scholars made some important discoveries, but we don’t accept them on their say-so.

If that is true what makes Calvin either more or less “infallible” in his other ideas, especially regarding theology?

If you think that most Protestants take Calvin’s theological ideas on trust, you don’t know much about Protestantism. I don’t know what world you live in.

And that assertion begs the question.

I don’t know what you mean. All I’m asserting is that many fundamentalists trust the Anabaptists more than they do Calvin. So when you point out that Calvin trusted the early Church up to about 600, they’ll say, “Of course–that’s why he accepted unbiblical ideas like infant baptism.”

If you mean that the assertion that the Church fell with Constantine begs the question–well, it does all sorts of bad things, but I’m not sure how petitio principii figures into the present discussion.

My point is simply that quoting Calvin will not do much for a non-Calvinist Protestant! And even a Calvinist is going to want some more confirmation before simply accepting the claim on Calvin’s say-so, since all Protestants believe that Calvin could have gotten things wrong, and almost all Protestants believe that he actually did.