Sola Scriptura

[La_Chiara]

brianberean:

More fluff and condescension with no attempt to provide a meaningful response. I’m starting to detect a pattern…

Brian

Brian–And you are not dismissive? You did not address whether you read Karl Keating’s book. It strikes me that you and others see the forums as a place to grandstand and rail against Catholic doctrine but you ignore, trivialize, or dismiss any arguments that you deem unworthy. Why is reading one of the definitive works on the subject so out of the question?

 

[brianberean]

La Chiara:

Brian–And you are not dismissive? You did not address whether you read Karl Keating’s book. It strikes me that you and others see the forums as a place to grandstand and rail against Catholic doctrine but you ignore, trivialize, or dismiss any arguments that you deem unworthy. Why is reading one of the definitive works on the subject so out of the question?

Telling me I am not interested in learning about catholicism (I was catholic for 30+ years, and a Knight of Columbus I might add) and then recommending a book is hardly presenting an argument.

No I didn’t read Karl Keating’s book. Yes I have read dozens of articles from the catholic answers website in order to “learn about catholicism”. If I told you that you didn’t have any interest in learning about protestantism and recommended a James White book would you consider that an argument?

I already have a long list of books sitting on my shelf that I haven’t gotten to yet, so forgive me if I don’t get right to reading Karl Keating’s book. If I recommend that you go read Eric Svendsen’s Evangelical Answers and you don’t, should I criticize you for it?

To my knowledge, I haven’t dismissed or ignored any “arguments” you’ve made. If you point one out, I’ll be glad to address it.

Brian

 

[SusanL]

brianberean:

Telling me I am not interested in learning about catholicism (I was catholic for 30+ years, and a Knight of Columbus I might add) and then recommending a book is hardly presenting an argument.

No I didn’t read Karl Keating’s book. Yes I have read dozens of articles from the catholic answers website in order to “learn about catholicism”. If I told you that you didn’t have any interest in learning about protestantism and recommended a James White book would you consider that an argument?

I already have a long list of books sitting on my shelf that I haven’t gotten to yet, so forgive me if I don’t get right to reading Karl Keating’s book. If I recommend that you go read Eric Svendsen’s Evangelical Answers and you don’t, should I criticize you for it?

To my knowledge, I haven’t dismissed or ignored any “arguments” you’ve made. If you point one out, I’ll be glad to address it.

Brian

Hi Brian. I am a convert. I am not much of a threat but I am willing to take you up on an exchange of reading books. Are you interested? I will read the book you mentioned (provided I can get it at a library or find a friend who has it) if you will read the Karl Keating book. What do you say?

 

[MariaG]

Brian,

There a bunch of threads that are devoted to Scripture alone with many Bible verses quoted as well as history. No fluff. However, since this is not the purpose of this thread, I won’t post them here but would look forward to discussion on a new thread or old with you.

God Bless,

Maria

 

[PhilVaz]

BrianBerean << If I recommend that you go read Eric Svendsen’s Evangelical Answers and you don’t, should I criticize you for it? >>

Not only have I read it, I’ve read it hundreds of times, maybe thousands of times. That and every other recent evangelical anti-Catholic book on the market. In fact I use to go out of my way to find these books and/or order them. Which is one reason why I kind of retired from apologetics, since the anti-Catholic apologetics are so lame. And I burned out.

In that book he claims Mary is not the Mother of God since Mary is mother of only the non-God part of Jesus, since “some of Jesus is God.” Now that is just stupid. I’ll keep pointing it out since its probably the dumbest thing in this book.

From Evangelical Answers by Svendsen:

“Jesus is both God and man; therefore, we must use the proposition some of Jesus is God…Mary cannot be said to be the mother of all of Jesus, but only of his humanity…Mary is the mother of some of Jesus; for Mary could very well be (and indeed is) mother of only the non-God part of Jesus…The fallacy again lies in not making the proper distinction between the humanity and deity of Christ. No one in the first century worshipped the body of Christ per se, but rather the person of Christ who happened to be embodied…” (Evangelical Answers, page 179, 242)

Hello Nestorius, Goodbye orthodox Christianity. Although to be fair I do acknowledge he affirms the first 4 ecumenical councils, or seems to, but his Christology is definitely confused in these books. See also Who is My Mother by Svendsen, page 265. Same thing there.

documented here, one of my unfinished projects

At least get Dave Armstrong’s A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, a better book than Keating’s and more up to date. Both have the common theological sense to acknowledge Mary is the Mother of God, since Jesus is God the Son, second person of the Trinity. While Svendsen is quite confused.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

BrianBerean << If I told you that you didn’t have any interest in learning about protestantism >>

And if I responded, what the h*** is “Protestantism” ? Where would I go to learn about “Protestantism” ?

Sounds like you have a Catechism of the Protestant Church to recommend to me? Don’t tell me, its White and Svendsen’s books right?

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

BrianBerean << Evangelicals don’t make such claims, so we don’t have to shoulder the burden of offering evidence that we can “trace our roots back” >>

Naw, the only burden of proof you have is to offer evidence that the Catholic Church from St. Ignatius of Antioch (110 AD) forward fell into complete apostasy on infant Baptism and baptismal regeneration, Eucharist real presence and sacrifice, the other sacraments, the visible nature of the Church, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, bishops, priests, apostolic succession, and you know all the rest of that stuff that developed. No burden at all.

And to show us that Mary is mother of the non-God part of Jesus since “some of Jesus is God” as your bishop Svendsen says Okay, now I’m being funny.

All right, the 25,000 figure is a bit off, your bishop showed that in the source that is commonly used (Barrett’s World Christian Encyclopedia). How about 1,000 and I raise you another 1,000 denominations, sects, and cults.

Phil P

 

[brianberean]

SusanL:

Hi Brian. I am a convert. I am not much of a threat but I am willing to take you up on an exchange of reading books. Are you interested? I will read the book you mentioned (provided I can get it at a library or find a friend who has it) if you will read the Karl Keating book. What do you say?

Thank you for the kind offer, but I have to say no at this time. I’m currently finishing the 2 volume set on the history of Christianity by Justo Gonzalez and I have another 2 volume set on church history waiting for me. I’m also starting FF Bruce’s commentary on Acts to be followed by Stott’s commentary on Acts. I also have to finish Debating Calvinism (debate between James White and Dave Hunt) one of these days. My question to the other poster was purely rhetorical. Thanks again.

Brian

 

[brianberean]

In that book he claims Mary is not the Mother of God since Mary is mother of only the non-God part of Jesus, since “some of Jesus is God.” Now that is just stupid. I’ll keep pointing it out since its probably the dumbest thing in this book.

Saying “some of Jesus is God” is stupid. Okay. What about saying “all of Jesus is God”? Is that accurate? What part of Jesus’ humanity is considered divine? Since saying “some of Jesus is God” is stupid, then I could assume that you’re saying “all of Jesus is God”. How’s Monophysitism working for you Phil? You know, I hear the RCC says that its not orthodox…

From Evangelical Answers by Svendsen:

“Jesus is both God and man; therefore, we must use the proposition some of Jesus is God…Mary cannot be said to be the mother of all of Jesus, but only of his humanity…Mary is the mother of some of Jesus; for Mary could very well be (and indeed is) mother of only the non-God part of Jesus…The fallacy again lies in not making the proper distinction between the humanity and deity of Christ. No one in the first century worshipped the body of Christ per se, but rather the person of Christ who happened to be embodied…” (Evangelical Answers, page 179, 242)

I just reread the entire section on “Mother of God” and I can’t seem to find anything wrong with it. Maybe you can expound a little (really, just a little, no DA style response needed) to more clearly point out what problem you find. BTW…your quote is from pp. 130-31.

At least get Dave Armstrong’s A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, a better book than Keating’s and more up to date. Both have the common theological sense to acknowledge Mary is the Mother of God, since Jesus is God the Son, second person of the Trinity. While Svendsen is quite confused.

Phil P

No offense to DA, but…

Brian

 

[brianberean]

PhilVaz:

BrianBerean << If I told you that you didn’t have any interest in learning about protestantism >>

And if I responded, what the h*** is “Protestantism” ? Where would I go to learn about “Protestantism” ?

Sounds like you have a Catechism of the Protestant Church to recommend to me? Don’t tell me, its White and Svendsen’s books right?

Phil P

Protestantism 101
Unlike the RCC, Protestantism is not a denomination which has one single hierarchal government and one catechism. Protestantism is a movement in the same way that Christianity is a movement. You do agree that it is possible to learn about movements don’t you Phil?

Brian

 

[RBushlow]

brianberean:

Mormons have faith in their church. JWs have faith in their church. Muslims have faith in Allah. This is not a convincing answer.

But we can trace the leaders of the Catholic Church (by RCC is an insulting epithet, please refrain from using it) straight back to the apostles, who received their commission from Jesus himself. Do a little homework and you’ll find out. Read the 1st and 2nd century Church Fathers. Sorry to be so terse, but there is no sense beating around the bush.

Yours in Christ.

 

[TheTruth]

RBushlow:

But we can trace the leaders of the Catholic Church (by RCC is an insulting epithet, please refrain from using it) straight back to the apostles, who received their commission from Jesus himself. Do a little homework and you’ll find out. Read the 1st and 2nd century Church Fathers. Sorry to be so terse, but there is no sense beating around the bush.

Yours in Christ.

Reading catholic History will only get you one thing, history the way the catholic church wants you to understand history…there are no independent verifyable facts to support your claim…believing the church fathers teachings on the chuirch is like believing that The Taurus is the best car in the world because Bill Ford said so…it’s self-serving and therefore suspect, as are an abundance of the traditions (aka human interpretations) of the catholic church. These self-serving teachings should be scrutinized and not assumed to be fact.

 

[fulloftruth]

Brian is being absurd. First of all Luther was Catholic First as well as all of the other first reformers. If not what were they Protesting or reforming. Second several non-christian artifacts from the first, second, third, fourth…etc. centuries all acknowledge the existence of Christ, and his church. Christ acknowleded it himself, knocking Saul on his *** and asking “Why do you persecute me so?” The Body of Christ is the Church, not a loose association of believers but the church that was given a share of the Authority that was given to the Son. Those who hear you , hear me…etc… What you bind…etc… I give to you Peter the Keys to the Kingdom, Binding and loosing…etc… Here Christ was quoting Isiah 22:22 almost verbatum, which was the setting up of the Office of the Prime Minister which was the Authoritative office in the Kingdom of David, which had successorship for as long as the Kingdom lasted. The Kingdom of David was a prefiguration of the Heavenly Jerusalem, or the Heavenly Kingdom of Christ or the Church. See Revelation. Christ asked Peter to tend His sheep, feed His lambs, Feed His sheep. The Church is the Fullfillment of the Kingdom of David. Notice that in Revelation at the foundation of the Heavenly Jerusalem or the Bride, the Church, is the Twelve Apostles which were the foundation of the Earthly Church. Christ sent the Holy Spirit to Fill the Apostles so that they could carry out the Commission that Christ gave them which was to go and preach and make disciples of all the Nations. A task which could not have been physically achieved in one generation of believers, which means that the authority that Christ shared with the Apostles, but mainly with Peter, did not end with the death of the Apostles. They even replaced Judas.

I would ask Brian where do you go to get a final judgement on whether a certain belief is herectical? If in the first centuries it was the apostles and the bishops that decided what was Heresy, (obviously with the protection of the Holy Spirit, so that they did not suppress true doctrine by mistake) why is taht not good now. Would not Christ want to give us an Authority on earth to give Authoritative decisions on what is heretical and what is the intended meaning of Scripture, so that believers would not be lead astray by teachings that seem authentic but contradict the tenets of the faith and cause souls to be lost forever.

 

[brianberean]

RBushlow:

But we can trace the leaders of the Catholic Church (by RCC is an insulting epithet, please refrain from using it) straight back to the apostles, who received their commission from Jesus himself. Do a little homework and you’ll find out. Read the 1st and 2nd century Church Fathers. Sorry to be so terse, but there is no sense beating around the bush.

Yours in Christ.

I’ve read first and second century fathers and I find Catholic beliefs, Protestant beleifs, Open theism beliefs, crazy pscycho beleifs, and much disagreement. Hmmmm…sounds like today.

Even if you truly could trace your leaders back to the apostles (many of the early lists disagree with each other), don’t you realize that “tracing the leaders back to the apostles” is only important to you? The Sadducees and Pharisees could trace their lineage back to Abraham. Did that impress Christ?

Brian

 

[PhilVaz]

BrianBerean << Maybe you can expound a little (really, just a little, no DA style response needed) to more clearly point out what problem you find. BTW…your quote is from pp. 130-31. >>

That must be the 1999 or whatever the latest version is. I have the 1997 version and the page numbers I listed are indeed correct for the 1997 version.

I’ll elaborate: saying Mary is “mother of the non-God part of Jesus” or Mary is “mother of the humanity of Jesus” only, is Nestorian. Also saying they worshipped “the person of Christ who happened to be embodied” is Nestorian, separating Christ into two persons, one human person, and another divine person.

There is no Monophysitism nor Nestorianism in the orthodox Catholic understanding that Mary is the mother of God, since Mary is the mother of Jesus and Jesus is God the Son, second person of the Trinity. Christ is one person, a Divine Person who is both God and Man. That’s the orthodox Christian teaching.

The orthodox Christian doesn’t say “some of Jesus is God” but Jesus is fully God or 100% God. Jesus is also fully man or 100% man. “All of Jesus is God” is fine if by that you mean “Jesus is fully God.” Then Yes. We need to be precise, as was Nicaea, Chalcedon, etc.

The implication “some of Jesus is God” implies Jesus is 50% God, or part God, part man, which is not orthodox. That’s why that terminology is wrong and confused. It’s not hard, just pick up a book on the Creeds or Christology. Basically Svendsen thinks he’s being clever trying to be anti-Catholic, but he’s really just being silly.

Phil P

 

[hlgomez]

Christ is one person, a Divine Person who is both God and Man. That’s the orthodox Christian teaching.

That’s orthodox Crirstianity, indeed! I might add; Christ the Lord has two natures, not persons.

Unlike the RCC, Protestantism is not a denomination which has one single hierarchal government and one catechism. Protestantism is a movement in the same way that Christianity is a movement. You do agree that it is possible to learn about movements don’t you Phil?

Brian,

That’s your own definition of Christianity that most protestants adhere to, and ironically not what the Scripture says. The reason why we have a single heirarchal authority and single cathecism (as you may say) is the very reason that the Church for so many centuries protects what has been handed down by the apostles themselves. The catholic church doesn’t have to add or invent doctrines that doesn’t come from the deposit of faith.

You are just so naive, in my opinion, that you don’t really see the reality in what protestantism is now–the present time. Look around you, haven’t you noticed so many different protestants claiming they are the church, each with different doctrines as your church? And yet, your church, too ( I assume) claims that you are the true church. Which is which that carries the truth? Does the one truth agree with opposing truth?

Yes the Catholic church claims to be the only Church of Christ. Simply because for so many centuries that have passed by, we haven’t changed not a single doctrine that comes directly to us from the apostles. That’s why we claim to have the direct connection to the apostles and have their same teachings and doctrines carefully safeguarded and passed on to their successors, the popes and bishops, in an unbroken line of succession. Yes, countless heretical and schismatic churches existed even at the start until today. But not one of these heretical and schismatic churches perpetuated their same belief and doctrines. The result was, some adopted part of their doctrines and form another church–and that’s what also is happening in the protestant churches today. You can see, that not a single protestant congregation that exists today held 100% of Luther’s doctrines in perpetuity, but each, to his own satisfaction and hearing, twisted the meaning and interpretation of Scriptures, and form their own group.

Further, you say that there are protestant beliefs that you find in the early fathers’ teaching? REALLY? But if you did find even one, and also atheist beliefs, etc., what did the early fathers said about them? Did they say they agree with what they believe?

St. Peter uttered these prophecy indeed against these people: "There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will introduce destructive heresies and even deny the Master who ransomed them, bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their licentious ways, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled.

…And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them (the letters) there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, *just as they do the other scriptures. *Therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, be on your guard not to be led into the error of the unprincipled and to fall from your own stability."

Pio

 

[Hans_A]

I would also like to add in the bantering back and forth that oral teaching, “Tradition”, preceded written teaching, “Scripture”. Furthermore, the Church that gave us the Bible, is probably the best one to explain to us what it says.

In Christ,
Hans

 

[Pax]

brianberean:

…

Even if you truly could trace your leaders back to the apostles (many of the early lists disagree with each other), don’t you realize that “tracing the leaders back to the apostles” is only important to you? The Sadducees and Pharisees could trace their lineage back to Abraham. Did that impress Christ?

Brian

Apparently it did impress Christ. In spite of their problems and their hypocrisy Jesus says in Matthew 23:2-3 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice…”

Jesus then set up the New Covenant and gave the Keys to Peter and the other apostles. There is much to be said about this but you get the idea.

You blow off the Church Fathers as just so much fluff. This is illogical and dangerous. For the most part you argue logically but you argue wrongly. The standards of proof you demand are not possible. That, however, should not deter an honest search and rational decision. The Church Fathers support Catholic teaching over and over, and they do this from the earliest centuries.

Read St. Ignatius of Antioch’s letter to the Church at Smyrna. He clearly upholds the Church’s teaching on the Real Presence. St. Ignatius was probably ordained by the apostle John. Somehow I don’t think he got it wrong. And the one true Church didn’t get this teaching wrong either.

And yes, the Catholic Church claims to be the one true Church, and it can trace its apostolic lineage all the way to Peter. The Church Jesus established should know that it is the one true Church, and it should rightly proclaim that truth. Protestant denominations do not make this claim for themselves and are put off by the Catholic Church having done so. But think about it. The one true Church would, indeed, make the claim.

 

[brianberean]

PhilVaz:

BrianBerean << Maybe you can expound a little (really, just a little, no DA style response needed) to more clearly point out what problem you find. BTW…your quote is from pp. 130-31. >>

That must be the 1999 or whatever the latest version is. I have the 1997 version and the page numbers I listed are indeed correct for the 1997 version.

I’ll elaborate: saying Mary is “mother of the non-God part of Jesus” or Mary is “mother of the humanity of Jesus” only, is Nestorian. Also saying they worshipped “the person of Christ who happened to be embodied” is Nestorian, separating Christ into two persons, one human person, and another divine person.

There is no Monophysitism nor Nestorianism in the orthodox Catholic understanding that Mary is the mother of God, since Mary is the mother of Jesus and Jesus is God the Son, second person of the Trinity. Christ is one person, a Divine Person who is both God and Man. That’s the orthodox Christian teaching.

The orthodox Christian doesn’t say “some of Jesus is God” but Jesus is fully God or 100% God. Jesus is also fully man or 100% man. “All of Jesus is God” is fine if by that you mean “Jesus is fully God.” Then Yes. We need to be precise, as was Nicaea, Chalcedon, etc.

The implication “some of Jesus is God” implies Jesus is 50% God, or part God, part man, which is not orthodox. That’s why that terminology is wrong and confused. It’s not hard, just pick up a book on the Creeds or Christology. Basically Svendsen thinks he’s being clever trying to be anti-Catholic, but he’s really just being silly.

Phil P

I think its easy to understand in context what Svendsen is saying and you are the one being silly.

“Some of Jesus is God” taken completely out of the context Svendsen sets up, “could” imply that Jesus if 50% God. But taken in the context of the book it is quite clear that is not what Svendsen is implying. C’mon Phil…you can’t honestly tell me that you don’t see that.

Brian

 

[MariaG]

originally posted by Brian
I think its easy to understand in context what Svendsen is saying and you are the one being silly.

“Some of Jesus is God” taken completely out of the context Svendsen sets up, “could” imply that Jesus if 50% God. But taken in the context of the book it is quite clear that is not what Svendsen is implying. C’mon Phil…you can’t honestly tell me that you don’t see that.

As someone who does not have the book (and is unlikely to get it in the near future) What is Svendsen implying within the context of the book?