Where to begin?

[Solus_Christus]

Read the writings of the Early Fathers. In 110 AD, St. Ignatius of Antioch describes himself (as he is being carried away to the lions) as a kind of Eucharistic sacrifice. He says, “Let me be ground into Eucharistic bread between the teeth of the lions.”

Even during the time of the apostles, there were already wrong ideas and heresies extant. Moreover, St. Ignatius was not infallible. Finally, the quote you provided seems a bit cryptic to me. I am not really sure it sheds any light on what he believed, but maybe you can help me with this.

I do place more weight on earlier writings, so I do not want to downplay the letter from Ignatius. Nevertheless, in the end everything must be scruitinized against God’s Word.

How could he say this, if he didn’t understand the Eucharist as the Christian sacrifice?

Christian sacrifice? I am afraid I am not following you at all. Please explain what you mean by this. The idea of the mass as a true sacrifice does not mean a sacrifice of the Christian. How could it?

We have a kind of time machine - we have the writings of the Church throughout the centuries, from the closing of the Scriptures (and even material that is contemporary with the New Testament writings) until now, with very few gaps. We know what they were thinking, because they wrote it down.

Yes, but those writings do not clearly lay out all of the RCC dogmas. Many of the dogmas concerning Mary, for example, are lacking in the early writings. Therefore, it is difficult to know exactly what the early believers believed concerning Mary and, more importantly, what the apostles did or did not teach concerning Mary. Also, while the church at Rome clearly enjoyed a preeminent position in the early Church, it is not at all clear from the early letters that the nature of that position is the same as it is today.

 

[Solus_Christus]

A hymnal is not a Bible, as you know.

Be that as it may, the Jews considered this hymnal (the book of Psalms) to be inspired, and apparently so did Christ. We nowhere see that He was challenged on this assertion, so we can safely assume the Jews agreed with Christ.

 

[Prieldedi]

I’ve been following this debate with special interest. Solus Christus has presented good arguments but each of them has been refuted by our Catholic debaters.

Solus says in Post # 416 that “believers must look to God and His Holy Spirit for wisdom and discernment” to know what are essentials from the Bible and what are not. But if we look at the Bible (to comply with what Solus says that “in the end everything must be scruitinized against God’s Word”), we see that the Holy Spirit/God doesn’t talk directly to everyone. In Post # 342 I presented the passage of the Ethiopian and Philip in Acts 8, and in that passage the HS talks to the person NOT READING the Scriptures (Philip) and has no conversation with the one reading Scriptures (the Ethiopian). Yet protestants believe that any Christian that grabs the Bible and reads it automatically gets a direct line to the HS, let’s call it “the Holy Spirit told ME” protestant argument. But who should we believe, protestants or the “scrutinized” passage in Acts 8 that presents the HS acting completely opposed to protestant teachings?

There is also the passage of Jesus asking the Apostles who the people say He is. That’s in Matthew 16:

14 They said, “For some of them you are John the Baptist, for others Elijah or Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 Jesus asked them, “But you, who do you say I am?”
16 Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, "It is well for you, Simon Barjona, for it is not flesh or blood that has revealed this to you but my Father in heaven.

If the Apostles were all equal, as protestants claim, why did God reveal this truth only to ONE of them? All the Apostles were there together with Jesus, yet God SPEAKS only to Peter. But it doesn’t stop there, just 6 verses later Jesus is talking again to Peter and He says:

23 … “Get behind me, Satan! You would have me stumble. You are their King not as God does, but as people do.”

What do we see now? That Peter got a second message, though this one was not from God. We see also that Peter had no idea ‘who talked to him when’. He didn’t know the Father talked to him first, he didn’t know Satan talked to him later. We know ‘who talked when’ because Jesus let Peter and the other Apostles know when God talked and then when the other spirit did. Why would God talk to the average protestant but not to any of the other Apostles in Matthew 16? Are we to believe that the average protestant is better prepared than Peter to discern when God/HS is talking to him and when it’s the other spirit? We should pay attention that in both instances in Matthew 16 Jesus was together with Peter and the Apostles, what is relevant is that Satan was able to put thoughts in Peter’s mind in the presence of Christ Himself. What prevents Satan to do the same to the average protestant with Christ not present?

If people can be deceived by individuals of bone and flesh they trust and see with their own eyes… isn’t it easier to be deceived by a spirit they can’t see, specially when there is such a spirit trying ceaselessly to deceive us? Remember that Satan disguises himself as “an angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:14), and as the saying goes, not everything that glitters is gold. But it seems that Protestants think that everything that comes to their minds while reading the Bible is gold.

Furthermore, Jesus didn’t promise a direct line from the HS to each and everyone of His followers. He made that promise to the Apostles. His promise didn’t take place during a gathering when thousands of people were listening to Him, it happened in a small gathering with the Apostles. How come the protestants can’t see the difference?

When “scrutinized against God’s Word”, the protestant argument “the Holy Spirit told ME” crumbles. This is not the way to arrive to the essentials. We were not ordered nor is it expected from us individuals to arrive to the essentials. We already have the Apostles handing them down to their successors and 2000 years later we know them through Jesus Church, the Catholic Church.

 

[jmcrae]

Yes, what if? As I have said numerous times before, there ought to be unity on the essentials, liberty on the non-essentials, and charity in all things.

If you can’t even figure out what the essentials are, how can you know whether you agree on them, or not?

If Joe insists that Jesus was a mere mortal and not “God from God,” then after a reasonable attempt by Harry to convince Joe of his folly, it is appropriate that Harry separates from Joe’s company. When in His high priestly prayer Christ prayed for the unity of believers, it was for unity among those who were His sheep. By rejecting the revealed truth of who Christ is (John 1:1), Joe demonstrates he is not one of Christ’s sheep. Therefore, it is not encumbent upon Harry to maintain unity with Joe. To the contrary, it is appropriate for Harry to break fellowship with Joe in order to make Joe “sorrowful unto repentence.”

Yes, but without the authority of the Church, Joe can just start up his own church that teaches whatever he wants to teach - there is no “sorrow unto repentance” - there is just rebellion and division.

If, on the other hand, Joe and Harry disagree about whether the new carpet in the church should be blue or red, then they ought not to strive against one another, but should rather esteem one another above themselves (Philippians 2:1-5). There is nothing commendable about church splits that have occurred over such trivial and non-essential matters and, once again, please do not expect me to defend the indefensible. In this regard, a hierarchical structure of church polity is valuable as it reduces the number of unnecssary divisions. But what to do when the hierarchy missteps on an essential matter, as Protestants maintain?

What if Joe believes that the colour of the carpet is an essential of the faith, having been passed down from the Apostles, that the floor must needs be red, for the blood of the martyrs, since the Apostles preached and taught among the tombs of the martyrs, and surely the floor was red with their blood - but Harry, although he admits that the floors of the tombs in which the Apostles preached were probably red, considers this a non-essential, and thus decides that, as the colour of the carpeting is a matter of local custom, and he happens to like blue? Who decides whether this is an essential of the faith, or a matter of episcopal discipline, or a matter for local custom?

Having rejected the Successors of the Apostles as authorities on these matters, they are left to quarrel about the issue all by themselves, with no way to resolve it to both of their satisfaction.

 

[Solus_Christus]

Disunity on Essentials
By Jimmy Akin
catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0312bt.asp

Well written article. For the most part I think Mr. Akin did a good job. There are some points where, intentional or not, he mischaracterized. As one example, Mr. Akin strongly insinuates that Luther held to transubstantiation. To the contrary, however, Luther held to consubstantiation.

One good point Akin brought up was under the section Disunity on “Faith Alone.” Akin speaks about what is, in Protestant circles, known as the “Lordship Salvation” debate with Ryrie and others on one side and Sproul and others on the opposing side. Whatever the motives of Ryrie’s camp, it is clear that they are ignoring James 2:14-26, as Akin points out. Meanwhile, Sproul can point to the passage in James as well as Galatians 5:6 in support of his understanding. Is this an essential matter? Actually, yes, it probably is. So suppose someone who thought themselves a Christian sided with Ryrie and took that view to the extreme such that there was no repentence in his life and he lived no different than a heathen. He would, in effect, be saying by his lifestyle: “let me sin that grace may abound.” Would not that individual’s condemnation be just when he one day stands before God? Does not the Bible loudly and completely refute this heresy? Who cares what that individual or Ryrie believes, the standard (Scripture) against which they will be judged transcends their opinions. Should Sproul or I be made by Catholics to give a defense for them? Are we answerable for them? No, but we will all be judged according to whether we handled the word of truth rightly (2 Timothy 2:15).

And what about the baptism question? Is it an essential? Let me say that the Bible clearly instructs Christians to be baptized. It does not clearly say how (i.e. mode) or whether it is required for salvation. Yet if someone claims to be a Christian and has opportunity to be baptized, but decides against it, we might well question his claim to be a Christian. The washing of water (baptism) itself is not efficacious to save anyone’s soul, but the obedience of the Christian to the command of God is an indicator of the condition of his soul. If we confess with our mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in our hearts that God raised him from the dead we will be saved (Romans 10:9), and as a result of that rebirth we who were once God haters (Romans 1:30) will now honor God with our obedience and declare Him as Lord through the visible sign of baptism. The RCC, with all of its dogmas and doctrines, takes great care in ceremonies and other religious observances, but the Lord Jesus searches the mind and heart (Revelations 2:23). Therefore, even if we all confess the same thing and even if we confess the right thing, some of our hearts may still be far from Him.

At the end of his article, Akin says: “The difference is that for Catholicism there is a body—the bishops teaching in union with the pope—who ‘speak for the Church’ and who can articulate what ‘the Catholic position’ is, while in Protestantism there is nothing comparable.” Since Akin is no doubt writing with the Catholic reader in mind, he takes for granted that the Catholic position is always the right position. I continue to maintain that various Catholic positions are contrary to Scripture, and therefore cannot be the right position. The net effect is error on a massive scale. And while this notion of having someone who can articulate what your position is for you may seem appealing, the notion itself is nowhere found in Scripture. To the contrary, when discussing differing opinions between believers in Philippians 3, Paul does not exhort believers to appeal to the Sacred Magisterium, but rather takes it for granted that God will clarify things for the believer (verse 15). The fact that, as Randy cheerfully pointed out, Protestantism continues to abound in new denominations does not invalidate Paul’s exhortation, but merely reveals that there is a lot of spiritual immaturity among believers. There are many who are contentious and like to quarrel, but their propensity does not invalidate Paul’s exhortation, which is God’s Word. God is at work in the believer through His Spirit, and all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God (Romans 8:14). If we are led by His Spirit we have confidence and trust in His Spirit, though we place no confidence in the flesh (Philippians 3:3). How can a Christian build that relationship of trust in His Spirit and be led by His Spirit when the Christian is instead led by the bishops in union with the pope, and allow the Magisterium to speak for him? This is a vastly different paradigm than what is laid out in Scripture.

 

[Solus_Christus]

Please provide references to the official documents of the Catholic Church which tell me that I may or must worship Mary.

If the Catholic Church went to the trouble to concoct a special term for Marian devotion, then it must be condoned and even encouraged, official document or not. The point here is not that Catholics are forced into hyperdulia, but since declarations concerning Mary’s assumption and immaculate conception were uttered ex cathedra, it is binding on Catholics to accept this.

God bless him, but John played a smaller role in the economy of salvation than did Mary who, as the Mother of the King, is rightly known as the Queen of Heaven.

Your study of the Old Testament probably already revealed this to you, I’m sure.

Interesting you should mention this. When I search the Old Testament for the Queen of Heaven I only find references in the book of Jeremiah. But I suppose you already know what those references say about the Queen of Heaven. Is it just an odd coincidence?

 

[Solus_Christus]

Does it please you or trouble you that the Catholic Church does not ordain women? I mean, at least we got this right…

Why should it trouble me? A Christian should rejoice when and wherever God’s Word is honored and followed.

 

[jmcrae]

Christian sacrifice? I am afraid I am not following you at all. Please explain what you mean by this. The idea of the mass as a true sacrifice does not mean a sacrifice of the Christian. How could it?

The Jewish Sacrifice is the Passover - the lamb offered on the Altar of God and then eaten each year in remembrance of the escape from Egypt.

The Christian Sacrifice is the Mass, in remembrance of Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross, in which bread and wine are offered on the Altar, and exchanged into Heaven for the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, so that the people can eat the Lamb of God (that is to say, Jesus).

Also, while the church at Rome clearly enjoyed a preeminent position in the early Church, it is not at all clear from the early letters that the nature of that position is the same as it is today.

It is enough that it held a pre-eminent position. The details change all the time, but the focus is the same.

 

[Solus_Christus]

Are you saying that there is a Methodist “truth” concerning the baptism of infants and a “Baptist” truth for denying it?

I don’t think that’s what you’re saying, but I gotta ask!

Not at all. Christ said that He is the Truth. Since Christ is God He is transcendent, which also means Truth is transcendent. There is, therefore, only one Truth. Truth is not relative.

 

[jmcrae]

If the Catholic Church went to the trouble to concoct a special term for Marian devotion, then it must be condoned and even encouraged, official document or not.

Marian devotion is not the same thing as worship of Mary. Marian devotion is strongly encouraged, but the worship of Mary is condemned, and in the past, people have been burned at the stake for it.

The point here is not that Catholics are forced into hyperdulia, but since declarations concerning Mary’s assumption and immaculate conception were uttered ex cathedra, it is binding on Catholics to accept this.

And again, these truths have nothing to do with worshipping Mary.

We find typologies of Mary in the mothers of the Kings of Israel (Jesus is the Eternal King of Israel), and in the Tabernacles, and in the Ark of the Covenant.

 

[Solus_Christus]

The “Council” of Jamnia
By Gary Michuta
handsonapologetics.com/deuterocanon.htm

Once again, thank you! This was very informative and well-documented (just the way I like it ). :tiphat:

 

[Solus_Christus]

Never has any one atributed Christ’s sacrifice on the cross to Mary.

One of the chapter’s in Liguori’s book is entitled: “Mary is Our Life, Because She Obtains for Us the Pardon of Our Sins.” Who obtained pardon for sinners, but Christ on the cross? To say that anyone other than Christ obtains pardon for our sins is to rob Christ of His glory and is blasphemy. Christ alone is our atonement (Romans 5:11) and only He could be put forth as a propitiation: “In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” (1 John 4:10) And what was God’s design, but that He would be glorified by Christ’s sacrifice? "Jesus said, “Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in him. If God is glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself, and glorify him at once.” John 13:31,32 Shall we dare to strive against God and lend His glory to another name? God forbid!

It is in knowing who Christ is that we know His mother.

And why is this important? What can she do that Christ has not already done? What is greater than the “immeasureable riches of his grace and kindness toward us in Jesus Christ?” Ephesians 2:7. Is it needful for our salvation? Was that God’s design, that Christ would bring us to Mary? No, but “in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself” (2 Corinthians 5:19).

Not one outside of the Catholic Church developed the doctrine of the Trinity, are you going to charge the Church of concocting another distinction?No because you happen to agree with this doctrine.

I already addressed this at least once. The Trinity is clearly conveyed in the NT.

 

[Solus_Christus]

So how do you know you are guided by the Holy Spirit and they are not? Are both of you led by the Holy Spirit but to completely different truths?

Well, for starters, I ought not be arrogant in whatever I believe. In my convictions I must walk humbly with God (Malachi 6:8) and constantly rely on His Spirit. Knowing that my flesh is weak and my mind marred by The Fall, I ought to place no confidence in the flesh (Philippians 3:3). If I have a disagreement with a brother in Christ, I ought not to be contentious but “in humility count others more significant than” myself (Phillipians 2:3). This is the instruction we are given by God concerning these matters. If I am faithful to obey these instructions, then I can have confidence in the leading of His Spirit (1 John 3:24). If the brother with whom I disagree is also faithful in these commands, God will bring us to an agreement (Philippians 3:15).

I just posted a reply to goes to your second question (no, Truth is NOT relative).

How do you find out now the truth of a doctrine? Do you think the pillar and bullwark of truth would have it?

Christ prayed to His Father: “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.” (John 17:17)

Just as there is in the now.

Agreed

Why do you believe Acts 17:11?

Because God said it.

And if you don’t agree with their interpretation, they must be wrong.

Nice try, but only in so long as I meet the criteria I outlined from God’s Word above.

Ordaining women is not the point. Authority is the point.

Agreed. And if someone rejects God’s authority by ignoring His Word then they are answerable for it to Him.

The doctrine of the Trinity and the canon of scripture are dogmatically proclaimed by men. Do you accept those teachings? Why? How did men get those things right but failed in other things?

Once again, I have answered this in previous posts. The doctrine of the Trinity is clearly conveyed in Scripture. The canon of Scripture was an acknowledgement of divine truth, not a pronouncement of what is divine truth. It may seem a subtle distinction, but the implications are huge.

Could you be wrong?

I can, yes, but God’s Word cannot.

Correct. And the Holy Spirit guides the Church into all truth. (John 16:13)

If there is only one Holy Spirit which we all agree on, how can the Holy Spirit tell you one truth and them another? Are you saying the Holy Spirit is who is to blame to divide us?

Do you deny anything of the Bible? Why or why not? I venture to bet you do not because you believe it is the inspired word of God. If that’s the case, why do you believe it is the inspired word of God?

Forgive me for glossing over all of these, but your friends have asked the same questions/made the same allegations, and I have answered them in various replies.

 

[fbl9]

One of the chapter’s in Liguori’s book is entitled: “Mary is Our Life, Because She Obtains for Us the Pardon of Our Sins.” Who obtained pardon for sinners, but Christ on the cross? To say that anyone other than Christ obtains pardon for our sins is to rob Christ of His glory and is blasphemy. Christ alone is our atonement (Romans 5:11) and only He could be put forth as a propitiation: “In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” (1 John 4:10) And what was God’s design, but that He would be glorified by Christ’s sacrifice? "Jesus said, “Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in him. If God is glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself, and glorify him at once.” John 13:31,32 Shall we dare to strive against God and lend His glory to another name? God forbid!

You are so wrong here my friend Christ does not obtain pardon He grants it.

And why is this important? What can she do that Christ has not already done? What is greater than the “immeasureable riches of his grace and kindness toward us in Jesus Christ?” Ephesians 2:7. Is it needful for our salvation? Was that God’s design, that Christ would bring us to Mary? No, but “in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself” (2 Corinthians 5:19).

Without knowing who His mother is you would be at a loss to defend the hypnostatic union of Christ.

I already addressed this at least once. The Trinity is clearly conveyed in the NT.

Ask there are the oneness pentacostals they will tell you that scripture is quite clear that there is no Trinity.

 

[jmcrae]

I just posted a reply to goes to your second question (no, Truth is NOT relative).

So, if one person believes that for the sake of their salvation babies need to be baptized as soon as possible, and someone else says that it’s okay to wait until “the age of reason” and have the child choose to be baptized if they want to be but it doesn’t really matter, then one of them is “wrong” - right?

Because God said it.

How we know that “God said it” is that Pope Innocent I infallibly declared that the Book of the Acts of the Apostles is a Book of the New Testament.

Once again, I have answered this in previous posts. The doctrine of the Trinity is clearly conveyed in Scripture.

The Sacrament of Reconciliation and the Mass are equally clear, but there are those who can’t find them - and there are many who can’t find the Trinity in the Bible, either - or even the Divinity of Christ.

 

[Tomster]

Then why did St Paul hand over those who did not follow all the teaching of the Apostle to the Satan? Remember Hymeneus? I would say he believed all the thing Protestant would say are the essential even though there is not official list. I guess Jesus and the HS just were not smart enough to give any guidance to His church like He promised. Or I would say He did give that guidance to His church which they earliest of the ECF state was the Catholic Church.

Then you are saying Jesus gave His church no guidance because I see Protestants coming up with all kinds of ideas that they say are clear and in the Bible and their interpretation differs from other Protestants. Remember there are Protestants that say Jesus is not God and I would classify that as one of the main essentials but since there is no Authority in the Protestant faiths they can believe whatever they want and say it is from the HS guiding them.

 

[Tomster]

If you can’t even figure out what the essentials are, how can you know whether you agree on them, or not?

Yes, but without the authority of the Church, Joe can just start up his own church that teaches whatever he wants to teach - there is no “sorrow unto repentance” - there is just rebellion and division.

What if Joe believes that the colour of the carpet is an essential of the faith, having been passed down from the Apostles, that the floor must needs be red, for the blood of the martyrs, since the Apostles preached and taught among the tombs of the martyrs, and surely the floor was red with their blood - but Harry, although he admits that the floors of the tombs in which the Apostles preached were probably red, considers this a non-essential, and thus decides that, as the colour of the carpeting is a matter of local custom, and he happens to like blue? Who decides whether this is an essential of the faith, or a matter of episcopal discipline, or a matter for local custom?

Having rejected the Successors of the Apostles as authorities on these matters, they are left to quarrel about the issue all by themselves, with no way to resolve it to both of their satisfaction.

 

[Tomster]

Why should it trouble me? A Christian should rejoice when and wherever God’s Word is honored and followed.

So long as the Christian is interpreting that Word as you interpret it I suppose.

Puhleeese!

 

[Tomster]

Your view is commendable…but in here, you highlight a big difference between the Catholics and protestants, the way I see it.

 

[Lampo]

If the brother with whom I disagree is also faithful in these commands, God will bring us to an agreement (Philippians 3:15).

When?

Christ prayed to His Father: “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.” (John 17:17)

Do you think the pillar and bullwark of truth would have the truth? (1 Tim. 3:15)

Because God said it.

How do you know God said it? How do you know God said 2 Tim. 3:16?

Nice try, but only in so long as I meet the criteria I outlined from God’s Word above.

What if you both meet the criteria? Who determines if the criteria is met? Could the person that determines the criteria is met be wrong?

Agreed. And if someone rejects God’s authority by ignoring His Word then they are answerable for it to Him.

Did God give His authority to anyone or anything?

The doctrine of the Trinity is clearly conveyed in Scripture.

To all Christians that claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit when interpreting the Bible?

The canon of Scripture was an acknowledgement of divine truth,…

By whom and could they have been wrong?

…not a pronouncement of what is divine truth. It may seem a subtle distinction, but the implications are huge.

Please explain the distinction.

I can, yes, but God’s Word cannot.

So why do you base your salvation on your own interpretation when you know you could be wrong? Do you think God set it up that way?