Sola Scriptura

[La_Chiara]

hlgomez,

AWESOME DEFENSE OF THE FAITH!!!

Thanks.

 

[brianberean]

hlgomez:

Brian,

I doubt you really did read the writings with 100% sincerity. If you did read (whcih I doubt), you really didn’t take their teachings to heart because of one simple compelling reason–they didn’t agree with your Protestant theology.

How can you possible know whether I was sincere or not? Some ECFs did agree with Protestant theology.

The writings of the ECF unanimously declares that the Catholic Church today (which you Protestants craftily calls RCC), still teaches that same faith-- Eucharist, infant baptism, marriage, apostolic succession, oneness of the Church, etc. They don’t have that smell of Protestantism in their teachings simply because they weren’t Protestants–they were Catholics!

Unanimously? Wrong! Stay tuned…

I never stated that the ECFs didn’t agree with today’s RCC on some things so your quoting ECFs to me doesn’t refute anything I said. You however claim “The writings of the ECF unanimously declares that the Catholic Church today still teaches that same faith” - Tell me if the following ECFs sound Roman Catholic to you:

“But, they say, we do not fear the images themselves, but those beings after whose likeness they were formed, and to whose names they are dedicated. You fear them doubtless on this account, because you think that they are in heaven; for if they are gods, the case cannot be otherwise. Why, then, do you not raise your eyes to heaven, and, invoking their names, offer sacrifices in the open air? Why do you look to walls, and wood, and stone, rather than to the place where you believe them to be?..Wherefore it is undoubted that there is no religion wherever there is an image. For if religion consists of divine things, and there is nothing divine except in heavenly things; it follows that images are without religion, because there can be nothing heavenly in that which is made from the earth.” - Lactantius (The Divine Institutes, 2:2, 2:19)

“All things are dear and open that are in the divine Scriptures; the necessary things are all plain.” John Chrysostom (Homilies on Second Thessalonians, 3, v. 5)

“The Lord of all things, brethren, is in need of naught; neither requireth he anything of any one, except to confess unto him. For the elect David saith, I will confess unto the Lord, and that shall please him more than a young calf that putteth forth horns and hoofs. Let the poor behold and rejoice thereat. And again he saith, Offer unto the Lord the sacrifice of praise: pay thy vows unto the Most High. And call upon me in the day of thy affliction, and I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me. For the sacrifice unto God is a broken spirit.” (First Clement, 52)

“There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews” Athanasius (Festal Letter 39:4)

“Well, let us suppose that those bishops who decided the case at Rome were not good judges; there still remained a plenary Council of the universal Church, in which these judges themselves might be put on their defense; so that, if they were convicted of mistake, their decisions might be reversed.” Augustine (Letter 43:19)

Brian

 

[brianberean]

hlgomez:

You are right in saying that the Church is the body of CHrist. Now, is the Body of Christ which is the Church made up of denominations with doctrines opposing each other? That’s plain contradictory to what you just said as being “Christ’s Body”. For we are members of the same body, but this same Body doesn’t have opposing truths.

Pio

The body of Christ is the elect. The elect are not of one certain denomination. Do you claim that the RCC is the body of Christ? If so does that include those who belong to the RCC but are not saved, or is everyone who claims affiliation with the RCC saved?

Are you claiming there aren’t opposing truths within RCism? Are there opposing truths about the inerrency of Scripture? Yes. Are there opposing truths about whether Genesis is literal or not? Yes. Are there opposing truths about predestination? Yes. Are there opposing truths about whether Vatican II was an infallible ecumenical council or not? Yes. Etc.

Brian

 

[brianberean]

hlgomez:

You are too focused on IC dogma but neglect the other BIG STUFF staring right before your eyes.

Let me just plainly state this: When did the Virgin Mary die? Did she died before the last of the apostles die or after? If you don’t see the IC coming directly from the Apostles–it simply means that the apostles didn’t wrestle themselves much whether the Virgin was Immaculate or not, but focused more on the Gospel. It will be very superflous to say that the Trinitarian doctrine which has to be defined definitively at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325 will come after the IC has been defined. The Virgin Mary is simply not greater than her Son, so her part was to come later when the truths about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which was constantly bombarded by heresies, will be definitively established at the Church Councils. Note that even when the Church taught about the Trinity in the early Church, this was still challenge by heretics–so the Church deals about God first, the Virgin Mary later.

Pio

You claimed all RC teachings came from the Apostles. I simply asked for proof. If you have none, just admit it. BTW…many of the earliest church fathers who comment on Mary contradict the IC. Just more proof against your false statement.

Brian

 

[brianberean]

So if we believe infallible Scripture could be written by fallible men that should logically lead us to beleive that fallible men of today can teach infallibly? Your argument (if it were true) would prove too much.

Here is some EVIDENCE that the pope has universal jurisdiction:

*“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” **Cyprean of Carthage (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

Cyprian also wrote this:

"Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power (On the Unity of the Church, 4)

Cyprian also was a leader of the council that wrote this:

For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there. (proceedings of the council of Carthage)

From Roman Catholic patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten:

On the other hand, it is the same Cyprian who gives the highest praise to the church of Rome on account of its importance for ecclesiastical unity and faith, when he complains of heretics ‘who dare to set sail and carry letters from schismatic and blasphemous persons to the see of Peter and the leading church, whence the unity of the priesthood took its rise, not realizing that the Romans, whose faith was proclaimed and praised by the apostle, are men into whose company no perversion of faith can enter’ (Epist. 59, 14). Thus the cathedra Petri is to him the ecclesia principalis and the point of origin of the unitas sacerdotalis. **However, even in this letter he makes it quite clear that he does not concede to Rome any higher right to legislate for other sees because he expects her not to interfere in his own diocese ‘since to each separate shepherd has been assigned one portion of the flock to direct and govern and render hereafter an account of his ministry to the Lord’ (Epist- 59, 14)…If he refuses to the bishop of Rome any higher power to maintain by legislation the solidarity of which he is the centre, it must be because he regards the primacy as one of honor and the bishop of Rome as primus inter pares ** (Johannes Quasten, Patrology (Westminster: Christian Classics, 1983), Volume II, pp. 374-378).

It is quite clear that you are wrong about Cyprian beleiving that the Roman bishop has universal jurisdiction.

Brian

 

[tTt]

Taken in totality the ECF are reliable in showing the beliefs of the church before the Bible and after. No reason to think they should all agree., but in total they paint a picture of christianity.

 

[Faith_is_First]

You claimed all RC teachings came from the Apostles. I simply asked for proof. If you have none, just admit it. BTW…many of the earliest church fathers who comment on Mary contradict the IC. Just more proof against your false statement.

Such as???

Have you read the Protoevangelium of James? I can guarantee that it was written earlier than any other Patristic document which speaks against the IC.

Also read De Fide Orthodoxa by St. John of Damascus.

The Church, bieng guided by the Holy Spirit, will be able to discern the Apostolic traditions from the false ones.

 

[Pax]

Brian,

I’m still waiting for a refutation of my counterpoint to your response to my first post, and a response to my question. I really am interested in what precipitated your departure from the Catholic Church.

Sincerely,

Pax

 

[fulloftruth]

The main question is, did Christ set up a church, did he give that Church a share of His authority, did he equip that church with the Spirit so it could carry the gospel into the future, unchanged by man. Arguing that it has changed is not the base of the disagreement. Is the Church that Christ started still around today and does it still have the Authority that was given to the Apostles. I will ask again, without the Church how does a Protestant come to know what Scripture IS. How is it determined what writings are inspired. Sola Scriptura must be proven from Scripture or you are waisting all of our time, because if the RCC is who and what she claims to be, then she is the only one who can interpret Scripture authoritatively and infallibly, and all of your differences would be argued against Christ himself and not us. Ask him why he saved his Mother from original sin, If it were me I would have never done such a wonderful act for my mother, yet I am not God. Ask him why he crowned her the Queen Mother of the New Heavenly Kingdom. Seeing how Christ came to fullfill the Kingdom of David, if He is King and she is His mother, and he is the Son of David, then is she not the Queen Mother, and is Peter not Eliakim, the Prime Minister. Sounds incredibly biblical to me

 

[brianberean]

hlgomez:

In this, I would like to borrow the words of Tertullian, for I can’t take off my “Rome colored glasses” of my eyes:

"But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood; where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John [the Baptist, by being beheaded]" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 36 [A.D. 200]).

He says the church of Rome “where authority is at hand”. Does he mean papal authority? It’s not at all clear from this snippet. I’m not arguing that the Roman church didn’t have a sort of authority or primacy of honor among Western churches, but thats a lot different than claiming papal supremecy and universal jurisdiciton similar to today.

***“Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul; against what standard the Galatians were measured for correction; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read; what even the nearby Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the gospel and even sealed it with their blood” (Against Marcion 4, 5:1 [A.D. 210]).

---

---

I don’t see any significance in this quote.

Here’s a few RC scholars:

Raymond Brown:
Obviously, first-century Christians would not have thought in terms of jurisdiction or of many other features that have been associated with the papacy over the centuries. Nor would the Christians of Peter’s lifetime have so totally associated Peter with Rome, since it was probably only in the last years of his life that he came to Rome. Nor would their respect for the church at Rome have been colored by the martyrdom of Peter and Paul there, or by a later history of the Roman church’s preservation of the faith against heresy. (Responses to 101 Questions on the Bible (Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1990), p. 134)

Klaus Schatz:
There appears at the present time to be increasing consensus among Catholic and non-Catholic exegetes regarding the Petrine office in the New Testament….The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative. That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the author of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably “no.”…If we ask in addition whether the primitive Church was aware, after Peter’s death, that his authority had passed to the next bishop of Rome, or in other words that the head of the community at Rome was now the successor of Peter, the Church’s rock and hence the subject of the promise in Matthew 16:18-19, the question, put in those terms, must certainly be given a negative answer. (Papal Primacy (Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996 pp. 1-2)

Brian

 

[brianberean]

hlgomez:

I already have stated what needs to be stated. It’s only for you to read them with all sincerity. You don’t need to buy them in bookstores, just go to EWTN and you can have access to the voluminous writings of the ECF. Don’t be a narrow-minded person–it will lead you to nothing. And oops, don’t turn the table against us Catholics. The burden of proof doesn’t lie in us, it belongs to you since you say that you protestants hold the truth. Show to us if the ECF agrees with you. I asked you first. We have the immesurable treasures in the Catholic faith. You just need to plunge yourself into them.

Pio

You have made assertions and not backed them up. If thats all you have to say then don’t make assertions you don’t plan on backing up, it hurts your credibility.

I already own the 38 volume set of the ECFs.

Now I must be narrow minded if I don’t come to the same conclusion as you? I approached apologetics with an open mind and ended up protestant.

I haven’t made the claims you’ve made. I haven’t made any claims and not backed them up. You made this statement:

"You can see, that not a single protestant congregation that exists today held 100% of Luther’s doctrines in perpetuity… "

If this statement is evidence against protestantism then the fact that there is not evidence that a single ECF held “100%” of the same doctrines the RCC holds today would seem to be evidence against RCism. Are you being inconsistent?

Brian

 

[brianberean]

Pax:

Brian,

I’m still waiting for a refutation of my counterpoint to your response to my first post, and a response to my question. I really am interested in what precipitated your departure from the Catholic Church.

Sincerely,

Pax

You’ll have to refresh my memory on your counterpoint. I feel like I’m on the DCF board…rapid fire…

What precipitated my departure from the RCC is a long story. Basically it boiled down to Scriptural, theological and historical evidence that I couldn’t keep ignoring.

Brian

 

[fulloftruth]

Klaus Schatz:
There appears at the present time to be increasing consensus among Catholic and non-Catholic exegetes regarding the Petrine office in the New Testament….The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative. That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the author of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably “no.”…If we ask in addition whether the primitive Church was aware, after Peter’s death, that his authority had passed to the next bishop of Rome, or in other words that the head of the community at Rome was now the successor of Peter, the Church’s rock and hence the subject of the promise in Matthew 16:18-19, the question, put in those terms, must certainly be given a negative answer. (Papal Primacy (Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996 pp. 1-2)

Brian

If the Office of Pope is, as taught by the Church herself, is a fullfilment of the office of Prime Minister, then his assumption that the office died with Pter is a false assumption based on the scriptural passage which Christ was pulling from. Check Isaiah 22:20-24. It even goes on to say that the Prime Minster will be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, Isn’t the word Pope simply the Italian word for Papa. How biblical can you get?

 

[brianberean]

fulloftruth:

If the Office of Pope is, as taught by the Church herself, is a fullfilment of the office of Prime Minister, then his assumption that the office died with Pter is a false assumption based on the scriptural passage which Christ was pulling from. Check Isaiah 22:20-24. It even goes on to say that the Prime Minster will be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, Isn’t the word Pope simply the Italian word for Papa. How biblical can you get?

We are speaking about the views of the ECFs. Can you tell me the earliest extent example of anyone using Isaiah 22:20-24 the way you are to justify the papal office?

Brian

 

[Pax]

brianberean:

You’ll have to refresh my memory on your counterpoint. I feel like I’m on the DCF board…rapid fire…

What precipitated my departure from the RCC is a long story. Basically it boiled down to Scriptural, theological and historical evidence that I couldn’t keep ignoring.

Brian

I think I would prefer the longer version without holding back. I don’t need the scriptural, theological, and historical part because you’ve already laid out some of your misgivings. If you want to share the tale, send me a private message or email rather than diverting this thread. I would have to take responsibility for that and others probably wouldn’t like it.

You can check out my earlier post to get the gist of my remarks. If you wish to reply to it that’s fine; if not that’s Okay too. I can see you’re busy here.

Yours in Christ,

Pax

 

[Pax]

brianberean:

We are speaking about the views of the ECFs. Can you tell me the earliest extent example of anyone using Isaiah 22:20-24 the way you are to justify the papal office?

Brian

That’s irrelevant. The scripture is inherently applicable. The other interesting thing about this set of verses is the statement that Eliakim will be a “father” to the people. Just as Pope means papa.

 

[Aris]

brianberean:

Tell me if the following ECFs sound Roman Catholic to you:

“But, they say, we do not fear the images themselves, but those beings after whose likeness they were formed, and to whose names they are dedicated. You fear them doubtless on this account, because you think that they are in heaven; for if they are gods, the case cannot be otherwise. Why, then, do you not raise your eyes to heaven, and, invoking their names, offer sacrifices in the open air? Why do you look to walls, and wood, and stone, rather than to the place where you believe them to be?..Wherefore it is undoubted that there is no religion wherever there is an image. For if religion consists of divine things, and there is nothing divine except in heavenly things; it follows that images are without religion, because there can be nothing heavenly in that which is made from the earth.” - Lactantius (The Divine Institutes, 2:2, 2:19)
Brian

I am not very familiar with the writer. But can you explain the circumstances surrounding this letter? What time and issues were at hand?

 

[hlgomez]

“But, they say, we do not fear the images themselves, but those beings after whose likeness they were formed, and to whose names they are dedicated. You fear them doubtless on this account, because you think that they are in heaven; for if they are gods, the case cannot be otherwise. Why, then, do you not raise your eyes to heaven, and, invoking their names, offer sacrifices in the open air? Why do you look to walls, and wood, and stone, rather than to the place where you believe them to be?..Wherefore it is undoubted that there is no religion wherever there is an image. For if religion consists of divine things, and there is nothing divine except in heavenly things; it follows that images are without religion, because there can be nothing heavenly in that which is made from the earth.” - Lactantius (The Divine Institutes, 2:2, 2:19)

Brian,

First of all, who was Lactantius referring to when he wrote this statement? Was he not referring to the Greeks who worship pagan idols living during that time? People worshipping Hercules, Hermes, Apollo, Neptune, etc.? And those people worshiped these very idols? You are taking Lactantius statement out of context and throw it to Catholics. Put your mind in the situtation where Lactantius is before you quote his words, for you are far way unfair to his statements.

In addition to your argument above, quoting the dear words of one of the fathers of the Church, are you unaware that you are borrowing words written by a Catholic Christian? Don’t you also ought to have the mind of a catholic before quoting what belongs to Catholics? For you indirectly quote those words to refute Catholics who adorn images of saints, crucifixes, etc. in the Church. Did God prohibit making graven images? You would say that God did forbid–yes–but God forbid making graven images of false gods and to worship them. Note the word worship. Catholics don’t worship idols, but we venerate them, as if belonging to what is holy, and indeed they became holy by consecrating them in the name of the True God who is in heaven. Have you read also, where, after God gave the Ten Commandents to Moses, ordered this same Moses to make graven images of angels for the Ark of the Covenant? Also, in the time of Solomon, adorned the temple with images of cherubims, lions, oxens, etc. (I Kings 6:23-36; 7:27-39; 8:6-67)? Far be it for us catholics to worship the saints as if they are God! For we are not worshipping these saints but remember them to pray for us who are here on earth, for they are more effective intercessors for us since they are with Christ in heaven. They are not dead people, as many Protestants propose, but they are all living! For anyone who is with God is not dead but alive.

Pio

 

[hlgomez]

*“The Lord of all things, brethren, is in need of naught; neither requireth he anything of any one, except to confess unto him. For the elect David saith, I will confess unto the Lord, and that shall please him more than a young calf that putteth forth horns and hoofs. Let the poor behold and rejoice thereat. And again he saith, Offer unto the Lord the sacrifice of praise: pay thy vows unto the Most High. And call upon me in the day of thy affliction, and I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me. For the sacrifice unto God is a broken spirit.” (First Clement, 52)
*

Brian,

God indeed require nothing from anyone. And again you are quoting the father whom you do not know, and use his writings against the very same father. Notice, the above quote is directed to the Jewish sacrifices offering bulls and rams and goats and calfs as sacrifices to God and not in ANY WAY in favor of Protestants (for there were none his time). But these things was taught by the father as foreshadowing what was to be offered thru the one true sacrifice that will be made, and was made, by Christ Himself. Are you then to say that God didn’t accept the sacrifice of His Christ? And that Christ’s sacrifice is a “broken spirit?”(I hope I got your point.)

If you are referring to the sacrifice of the Mass as useless, you ought to think a hundred times over. For these very same Mass is “perpetuated” or “making present” the one true sacrifice of Christ in Calvary. This is not an invention of the Catholic Church, but is indeed a commandment of the Lord himself, “Do these in memory of me.” Neither is this another sacrifice of Christ, but the very same sacrifice making available to us in our present time, so that thru them, we may attain sanctification and grace, and experience ourselves the love of God, and partake him–Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity–in the holy Eucharist. For He said "Take and eat, this is my Body… and again he said; “Take and drink, this is my Blood…” Do we not ought to obey him for what he purposely instituted?

And again, how this offering of sacrifice was foretold by the prophet Malachi. And I will quote from the very Bible that you Protestants lovingly use:

For from the rising of the sun, even to its going down, My name shall be great among the Gentiles; In every place incense shall be offered to My name, And a pure offering; For My name shall be great among the nations," Says the LORD of hosts. (KJV)

This very pure offering is the offering up of the Body and Blood of the Lord in the Mass–wholly acceptable, and indeed, the only acceptable and perfect sacrifice. We Catholics, have done this same Mass for 2000 years, and nothing have stopped us from doing, even to the point that Christians were martyred and persecuted. If you also would say that by only confessing is enough, isn’t the one confessing profaned by sins? Didn’t Satan and all the fallen angles also confessed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God?

Don’t misquote what the father has said, but instead read the writings in full and you will know that the very same father teaches the Catholic faith.

Pio

 

[hlgomez]

The body of Christ is the elect. The elect are not of one certain denomination. Do you claim that the RCC is the body of Christ? If so does that include those who belong to the RCC but are not saved, or is everyone who claims affiliation with the RCC saved?

Are you claiming there aren’t opposing truths within RCism? Are there opposing truths about the inerrency of Scripture? Yes. Are there opposing truths about whether Genesis is literal or not? Yes. Are there opposing truths about predestination? Yes. Are there opposing truths about whether Vatican II was an infallible ecumenical council or not? Yes. Etc.

We Catholics didn’t say yes to your question. It is you who answered yes to all your proposed questions.

Pio