Sunday, October 14, 2007

Double Standards, Presuppositions, and Determining Truth

Here are two comments from a recent Beggars All comm box, that when juxtaposed, point out one of the double standards used by Roman Catholics. In other words, the arguments put forth, when applied to their own position, refute their own position.

Argument 1:
"But then, Holy Writ is CLEAR…clear after 1500 years! (For it took Luther to “discover the Gospel” which was lost…uhhh…unknown…)"

Argument 2
"Altaner,the patrologist from Würzburg...had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the fifth century."

In argument #1, sola fide is untrue because Luther's understanding of justification cannot be traced in the particular formulation he used backward in church history. For sake of argument, grant this is true, and then apply the same standard to argument #2. Should it not follow that Mary's assumption is not true because it cannot be traced in the particular formulation first noted in the 5th century backward in church history?

Now think further along these lines using the same methodology Roman Catholics use. The dogma of the assumption is the product of development. Its earlier formulations are not as clear or complete. For instance, the Byzantine theologians in the 7th- 9th centuries more-a-less think Mary's soul was taken to Heaven. But by the end of the development in the 1950's, Mary's soul and body are in Heaven. Now, keep your Roman Catholic glasses on. Earlier formulations of justification say faith is required in justification. With the advent of the Reformation, the Reformed Biblical exegetes arrive at faith alone. Development has occurred. But yet, the development of sola fide is false, and the development of the assumption is true. What makes the final developed Assumption true and the final developed sola fide false? ...The infallible church.

Roman Catholics want to argue for development, while arguing against development. They should say, "...sure doctrine develops, but it is only true development if our infallible church says so." This is pure sola ecclesia. Really then, it doesn't matter what happens in development, because only the infallible church can tell you what is correct or incorrect development. Thus, the study of historical development becomes trivial and meaningless.

Arguing for truth as Roman Catholics do, does much more harm to their position than they realize when the same standards are applied to their arguments. The big question that needs to be asked is, "How is truth determined?" Is it determined by a statistical analysis of church history? Roman Catholics may try to argue along these lines, but let us not forget Athanasius, showing that one can stand seemingly alone with the truth against the universally accepted falsehood of the day.

Truth, as finally determined by the current batch of Catholic apologists, is ultimately determined by the infallible church. This is their beginning presupposition, and each engagement with those committed to Rome should never lose site of this.

91 comments:

David Waltz said...

Hello James,

You wrote:

>>In argument #1, sola fide is untrue because Luther's understanding of justification cannot be traced in the particular formulation he used backward in church history. For sake of argument, grant this is true, and then apply the same standard to argument #2. Should it not follow that Mary's assumption is not true because it cannot be traced in the particular formulation first noted in the 5th century backward in church history?>>

Me: You have totally misrepresented my argument James; sola fide is not “untrue because Luther's understanding of justification cannot be traced in the particular formulation he used backward in church history”. I have clearly stated that almost all doctrine develops. My argument is against the Protestant view of the perspicuity of the Scriptures. CLEAR doctrines do not take hundreds of years to develop. Nor does a CLEAR text allow for more than one consistent interpretive trajectory. That’s my argument James, not the strawman you presented to your readers. (I was quite CLEAR [pun intended] on this in this post: http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2007/09/perspicuity-clarity-of-sacred-scripture.html .)

>>Roman Catholics want to argue for development, while arguing against development. They should say, "...sure doctrine develops, but it is only true development if our infallible church says so." This is pure sola ecclesia. Really then, it doesn't matter what happens in development, because only the infallible church can tell you what is correct or incorrect development. Thus, the study of historical development becomes trivial and meaningless.>>

Me: Another false dichotomy, for “what happens in development” does matter; Sacred Scripture does matter; history does matter.

>>Arguing for truth as Roman Catholics do, does much more harm to their position than they realize when the same standards are applied to their arguments. The big question that needs to be asked is, "How is truth determined?" Is it determined by a statistical analysis of church history? Roman Catholics may try to argue along these lines, but let us not forget Athanasius, showing that one can stand seemingly alone with the truth against the universally accepted falsehood of the day.>>

Me: Truth is determined by the work of the Holy Spirit on the minds and hearts of those who faithfully reflect on Sacred Scripture within the great Tradition of the Church that our Lord Jesus Christ Himself founded the Rock.

>>Truth, as finally determined by the current batch of Catholic apologists, is ultimately determined by the infallible church. This is their beginning presupposition, and each engagement with those committed to Rome should never lose site of this.>>

Me: This is not my “beginning presupposition”; but rather, it is a truism that flows from my actual presuppositions.


Grace and peace,

David

GeneMBridges said...

My argument is against the Protestant view of the perspicuity of the Scriptures. CLEAR doctrines do not take hundreds of years to develop. Nor does a CLEAR text allow for more than one consistent interpretive trajectory.

A nonsequitur that, if true, would equally apply against Romanism itself, for how, pray tell, is Roman tradition any clearer than Scripture? You still have to exegete the Fathers, the creeds, etc. - and which of articles of the creeds do not terminate upon the exegesis of Scripture?

It also confounds the qualities of Scripture itself with the interpretations thereof.

By the way, where is the infallible list of interpretations issued by Rome? We'll let you ponder that one.

And, since your Communion was party to the many interpretations of the Creed of Chalcedon down the centuries, most notably questioning what "person" means, we'll be content to observe that, if true, the multiplicity of interpretations of that single word and the meaning of the creed within the Roman communion through the centuries means that the Chalcedonian Creed lacks clarity too. So much for the clarity of the creeds. Shall we try for interpretations of the Council of Trent in the present day too?

Me: Truth is determined by the work of the Holy Spirit on the minds and hearts of those who faithfully reflect on Sacred Scripture within the great Tradition of the Church that our Lord Jesus Christ Himself founded the Rock.

Really? And how do we know which Church this is and that Holy Spirit is working in it/them? You're quite adept at smuggling question-begging arguments into your statements.

One of you nasty and perpetual habits is that this assertion:

"But then, Holy Writ is CLEAR…clear after 1500 years! (For it took Luther to “discover the Gospel” which was lost…uhhh…unknown…)"

Of course would mean, ultimately, that that if one does not believe in Sola Fide one cannot be saved. This is a regular feature of Romanism.

1. Of course, that's a straw man, for we draw a distinction between a credible profession of faith and a saving profession.

2. Sola Fide is not itself an article of saving faith. It is an article of a credible profession of faith.

3. We distinguish between kinds and levels of error. Leaving aside what certain Fathers actually said about justification by faith alone and its formulation in church history, if what you say about the development of doctrine is true, your error is all the greater today than it would have been in their day.

4. Likewise, we are quite comfortable, apropos 1 to 3 with saying one can be justified by faith in Christ alone without believing in justification by faith alone. We'll cut more slack to the ignorant Catholic than the one who spreads and admits his views.

In what do you trust? The merits of Christ alone or do you believe, David, that you must add your merit, the sacraments, and the congruent merits of others to your faith in order to be justified? If you truly believe the latter, David, no, we would say you are not saved, for you admit to mixing merit other than that of Christ Himself with your own and/or others. That means you aren't trusting in Christ alone, and you know and promulgate that error.

EgoMakarios said...

Scripture is clear and was clearly followed by the church until after the days of Justin Martyr. Then men simply turned their hearts from the Scriptures.

Albert said...

Here's why the burden of proof is on the Roman Catholic apologist.

"The Roman Catholic Church states that it possesses an oral Apostolic Tradition which is independent of Scripture and which is binding upon men. It appeals to Paul's statement in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 for the justification for such a claim, where Paul states that he handed on traditions or teachings to this Chruch in both oral and written form. Rome asserts that, based on Paul's teaching in this passage, the teaching of sola Scriptura is false, since he handed on teachings to the Thessalonians in both oral and written form. But what is interesting in such an appeal is that Roman apologists never document the specific doctrines that Paul is referring to which they claim they possess and which are binding upon men. In all the writings of apologists from the Reformation to the present day no one has been able to list the doctrines that comprise this supposed Apostolic Oral Tradition. From Francis De Sales to the writings of Karl Keating and Robert Sungenis there is this conspicuous absence. Sungenis is editor of a work recently released on a defense of the Roman Catholic teaching of Tradition entitled Not By Scripture Alone. It is touted as a definitive refutation of the Protestant teaching of sola Scriptura. It is 627 pages in length. But not once in the entire 627 pages does any author define the doctrinal content of this supposed Apostolic Tradition that is binding on all men. All we are told is that it exists, that the Roman Catholic Church possesses it, and that we are bound therefore to submit to this Church which alone possesses the fulness of God's revelation from the Apostles. But they can't tell us what it is. And the reason is because it doesn't exist. If they are of such importance why did Cyril of Jerusalem not mention them in his Catechetical Lectures? I defy anyone to list the doctrines Paul is referring to in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 which he says he committed orally to the Thessalonians." - William Webster

Source: http://www.christiantruth.com/solascriptura.html

I myself have seen Not by Scripture Alone, but I don't remember any of the authors enumerating what these "traditions" are. They simply assumed that they existed and that Sola Scriptura is false.

Thanks for the post, James.

James Swan said...

CLEAR doctrines do not take hundreds of years to develop.

Oh is that your argument? Well, you know me, i'm so busy reading Walter Martin books, and concentrating on the "grace and peace" you always wish me, I must've missed it.

Can you attempt to think outside of your box for a moment? (This is kind of what I try to do). Grant sola fide is taught in the Bible, and then list any reasons historically why sola fide was obscured throughout church history, and why it is still obscured by many today.

Off the top of my head, I can think of some very important factors, but you're supposed to have a library of 30'000 books (or something like that), so perhaps one of them contains the data I think is important. In others words, I'm actually a bit shocked you're making the argument you are making. It's Protestantism 101 stuff.

Nor does a CLEAR text allow for more than one consistent interpretive trajectory.

I would make a similar request with this. I can't believe your entire library consists of Scott Hahn and Patrick Madrid books, and if I recall, you are a convert. You must have something that delves into this. You mean to tell me you've never read anything that would answer this type of question? I find your points rather elementary.

One last point: do you differentiate between "truism" and presupposition?

Anonymous said...

Wow.
I've not looked in for over a week and you're still playing the same broken record.

Did I meantion how boring this blog has become since it changed from dialog to diatribe mode?

Saddest thing I've noticed:
On-going harping by Catholics that this site or some of its writers are "anti-Catholic." What do you hope to accomplish, guys?
Funniest thing I've noticed:
On-going complaining about Catholics calling this site or some of its writers "anti-Catholic." What do you expect, guys?

Anonymous said...

"Truth, as finally determined by the current batch of Catholic apologists, is ultimately determined by the infallible church. This is their beginning presupposition"

You forget the suppositions that must come before any supposition of the Church's ability to correctly divine the Word of Truth:

1) That Jesus himself founded the Church. (Which he did)

2) That God Himself promised that the Church would be the pillar of truth and that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it. (Which He did.)

These are the same presuppositions that Protestants rely upon when they claim the know beyond doubt that "sola scriptura" is true.

The real difference in argument I see then is that Catholics believe the church today is the same Church that Jesus founded. TULIP reformers do not. they believe the Church Jesus founded vanished and that the church they created is as close a facsimile as can be manufactured.

It seems to me that the development of TULIP theology might be worth considering if the theologians who espouse it actually believed in doctrinal development, but having neither a connection to the Church that Jesus founded, nor themselves having any claim to apostolic succession or doctrinal development (doctrines they deny even for themselves), there is no room for TULIP innovation.

In effect, their own arguments turn against them in a way that is actually effective, whereas their use of them against the Catholic Church is ineffectual (and in the process witness to Jesus own testimony about the nature of the Church).

James swan et al miss the intended target as they shoot their own "legs" out from under themselves.

E i E

Rhology said...

eie,

1) That Jesus himself founded the Church. (Which he did)
2) That God Himself promised that the Church would be the pillar of truth and that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it. (Which He did.)


Nobody here is denying that. But we resist the importation of meaning into the psgs that RCs so often pour in.

These are the same presuppositions that Protestants rely upon when they claim the know beyond doubt that "sola scriptura" is true.

I don't see how those presupps are necessary at all. We wouldn't know either claim if we didn't accept the Scr FIRST. Don't get the cart before the horse.
Some presupps we accept are that there is a God, that He has revealed Himself in a way at least partly understandable to humans.

the Church Jesus founded vanished and that the church they created is as close a facsimile as can be manufactured.

Here you resort to the same broad-brush Jack Chick tactics that you'd decry from our side. We'd love to engage a critique of our actual position.

if the theologians who espouse it actually believed in doctrinal development, but having neither a connection to the Church that Jesus founded, nor themselves having any claim to apostolic succession or doctrinal development (doctrines they deny even for themselves), there is no room for TULIP innovation.

Why would a 5-pt Calvinist care about that? A 5-pt Calvinist also affirms the 5 Solas, you know, as Gene recently explained (not that I'm expecting you to have seen that, I'm just pointing it out to you). Sola Scriptura is one of those. And as Gene said above in this combox, what you say here confounds the qualities of Scripture itself with the interpretations thereof.

Finally, I note you didn't attempt to answer any of the points that James Swan or Gene made above. Why not?

Peace,
Rhology

Grand Inquisitor of the Great Inquisition said...

"But then, Holy Writ is CLEAR…clear after 1500 years! (For it took Luther to “discover the Gospel” which was lost…uhhh…unknown…)"

Citation, historical documentation needs be provided by both RC's and Protestants here if advancement is to be made in this area. Simply because:
1. RC's claim that the Church is the insitution founded by Christ, and thus holds the fullness of the truth, by their interpretation of the Bible, which even according to Protestants they are entitled to.
2. Protestants claim otherwise, they say that the Church has erred, and has failed/no longer keeps pure gospel, but fails to demonstrate the apostolicity and historicity of their claim, thus, if they are right, the "pure" gospel, which is of yet undefined, was lost about the death of Justin Martyr and was not rediscovered for about 1400 years, which is basically the claim that the Church failed, and that the gates of Hell prevailed against it, for a time, contrary to the promises made in scripure. Protestants claim that there was always a remnant, and that even now there is such a faction that holds this "pure" gospel, again completely undefined, and absolutely unsubstantiated.

With these facts in mind, how can we say any thing for certain, when our own positions themselves are not certain, how then can we proceed to condemn without a standard that is consistent by which to judge and condemn, and then to define what is right?
Quite simply, then, there is needed a historical record and presence of what ever this pure gospel group was, who were they, what did they believe, and what are the witnesses who say these things, and by what standard are they right, and the RC's wrong, and by what standard are we to know what is the true interpretation of that standard, and, also, how can we be sure of this standard, where did it come from, and where is the evidence?

These questions are begging an answer, does anyone care satisfy them?

Anonymous said...

In argument #1, sola fide is untrue because Luther's understanding of justification cannot be traced in the particular formulation he used backward in church history. For sake of argument, grant this is true, and then apply the same standard to argument #2. Should it not follow that Mary's assumption is not true because it cannot be traced in the particular formulation first noted in the 5th century backward in church history?

By what authority?

Carrie said...

Quite simply, then, there is needed a historical record and presence of what ever this pure gospel group was, who were they, what did they believe, and what are the witnesses who say these things, and by what standard are they right, and the RC's wrong, and by what standard are we to know what is the true interpretation of that standard, and, also, how can we be sure of this standard, where did it come from, and where is the evidence?


Try the Bible!

Carrie said...

1) That Jesus himself founded the Church. (Which he did)

2) That God Himself promised that the Church would be the pillar of truth and that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it. (Which He did.)


Can you prove to us that these claims cannot be satified by Eastern Orthodoxy? They make the same claims.

David Waltz said...

Hello Gene,

Thanks for responding to yesterday’s entry. You posted:

>>My argument is against the Protestant view of the perspicuity of the Scriptures. CLEAR doctrines do not take hundreds of years to develop. Nor does a CLEAR text allow for more than one consistent interpretive trajectory.

A nonsequitur that, if true, would equally apply against Romanism itself, for how, pray tell, is Roman tradition any clearer than Scripture? You still have to exegete the Fathers, the creeds, etc. - and which of articles of the creeds do not terminate upon the exegesis of Scripture?>>


Me: You have switched the topic from the Scriptures to tradition in order to support your “nonsequitur” charge. Let’s stay on topic.


>>And, since your Communion was party to the many interpretations of the Creed of Chalcedon down the centuries, most notably questioning what "person" means, we'll be content to observe that, if true, the multiplicity of interpretations of that single word and the meaning of the creed within the Roman communion through the centuries means that the Chalcedonian Creed lacks clarity too. So much for the clarity of the creeds. Shall we try for interpretations of the Council of Trent in the present day too?>>


Me: In all honesty, you need to be talking to Carrie on this for she is the one who believes ALL the decrees formulated in the great Councils are CLEAR. I have actually argued that many key elements are in a very real sense still developing.

>>Me: Truth is determined by the work of the Holy Spirit on the minds and hearts of those who faithfully reflect on Sacred Scripture within the great Tradition of the Church that our Lord Jesus Christ Himself founded the Rock.

Really? And how do we know which Church this is and that Holy Spirit is working in it/them?>>


Me: History.


>>You're quite adept at smuggling question-begging arguments into your statements.>>


Me: Only if one rejects the necessity of presuppositions.


>>One of you nasty and perpetual habits is that this assertion:

"But then, Holy Writ is CLEAR…clear after 1500 years! (For it took Luther to “discover the Gospel” which was lost…uhhh…unknown…)"

Of course would mean, ultimately, that that if one does not believe in Sola Fide one cannot be saved. This is a regular feature of Romanism.>>

Me: Once again, I am merely relying on statements made by fairly prominent Protestant authors/apologists.


>>1. Of course, that's a straw man, for we draw a distinction between a credible profession of faith and a saving profession.

2. Sola Fide is not itself an article of saving faith. It is an article of a credible profession of faith.>>


Me: What is that old adage …oh yeah: you need to clean your own house before you attempt to clean mine.


>>3. We distinguish between kinds and levels of error. Leaving aside what certain Fathers actually said about justification by faith alone and its formulation in church history, if what you say about the development of doctrine is true, your error is all the greater today than it would have been in their day.>>


Me: Really? Have you been able to persuade the Protestant pastor of the following online piece of this? It also confounds the qualities of Scripture itself with the interpretations thereof. http://iustificare.blogspot.com/2007/03/meaning-of-dikaioo.html


>>By the way, where is the infallible list of interpretations issued by Rome? We'll let you ponder that one.>>


Me: Well, to start with, all the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils that dealt with faith and morals.


>>4. Likewise, we are quite comfortable, apropos 1 to 3 with saying one can be justified by faith in Christ alone without believing in justification by faith alone. We'll cut more slack to the ignorant Catholic than the one who spreads and admits his views.>>


Me: I sincerely hope that I do not appear in your courtroom anytime soon…


>>In what do you trust? The merits of Christ alone or do you believe, David, that you must add your merit, the sacraments, and the congruent merits of others to your faith in order to be justified? If you truly believe the latter, David, no, we would say you are not saved, for you admit to mixing merit other than that of Christ Himself with your own and/or others. That means you aren't trusting in Christ alone, and you know and promulgate that error.>>


Me: I trust in the work of blessed Trinity to bring about the salvation of all who place their faith in God to accomplish that end. God has lovingly provided many graces (unmerited) as means to this goal. I sincerely believe in the words of our Lord who said: “You must be born again to enter into the kingdom of God.” IMHO, a proper understanding of soteriology must keep this NECESSARY change in mind.


Grace and peace,

David

e i e said...

"1) That Jesus himself founded the Church. (Which he did)

2) That God Himself promised that the Church would be the pillar of truth and that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it. (Which He did.)

Can you prove to us that these claims cannot be satisfied by Eastern Orthodoxy? They make the same claims.

First, these are not claims made by The Church, they are the claims of Christ. If you have trouble with them, argue with Him.


Secondly, no I can't prove that these claims cannot be satisfied by Eastern Orthodoxy, nor would I try to do so, as they apply rather well. Who told you that I think otherwise? These claims alone are not the sole definers of what constitutes the Church Proper.

The Orthodox Catholic Church's claims in this regard are excellent. We disagree in our understanding of the plurality vs singularity of leadership of the Holy See. I believe the Catholic Church is best represented in the Roman Rite. However, Eastern Orthodox Catholics by no means suffer from the self-defeating claim of dis-continuity that TULIP reformers embrace as a matter of doctrine their own doctrine.

I see it as a matter of history and oneness under ordained leadership--but why should I criticize the Orthodox Church which has demonstrated consistent theology and makes a good case for succession throughout her own history? They believe that they are the same Church as Jesus founded. I believe they are a very near offshoot. So what? Did you think we were not aware of our differences as well as our commonality? Yes, they refused the authority of the Bishop of Rome as the first among equals in the Holy See, and this resulted in their removal from full communion with us, but their expression is nevertheless an excellent profession of faith that arguably holds very well to the true faith. To that great extent, we deem them some of our closest brothers and kindred in Christ, as the True Church under the Holy Spirit significantly operates within their communion.

We see that the Church Proper must be all of these.
1 One
2 Holy
3 Catholic
4 Apostolic

Many Roman Rite Catholics recognize that the Orthodox fulfill requirements 2, 3 and 4, and their missing number 1 is hardly perceptible compared with that of Protestant expressions.

We view various Protestant communions as having some of the four requirements, none as having all.

But then I expect you already knew all of that.

In light of the differences between Protestants with not only Catholics but with each other, the history of a relatively minor issues such as "filioque" being enough of a disparity that the church should divide over them testifies more to the weight of both Church's claims of unity and common history than against it.

E i E

David Waltz said...

Hello James,

You posted the following:

>>CLEAR doctrines do not take hundreds of years to develop.

Oh is that your argument? Well, you know me, i'm so busy reading Walter Martin books, and concentrating on the "grace and peace" you always wish me, I must've missed it.>>


Me: Silly me, I had hoped that you were reading the responses that have been, and are being made on you blog.


>>Can you attempt to think outside of your box for a moment? (This is kind of what I try to do). Grant sola fide is taught in the Bible, and then list any reasons historically why sola fide was obscured throughout church history, and why it is still obscured by many today.>>


Me: I have already done this before entering the RCC. If you would like a list of Protestant works on doctrinal development that I read PRIOR to becoming a Catholic, I will take the time, and send it to you.


>>Off the top of my head, I can think of some very important factors, but you're supposed to have a library of 30'000 books (or something like that), so perhaps one of them contains the data I think is important. In others words, I'm actually a bit shocked you're making the argument you are making. It's Protestantism 101 stuff.>>


Me: I shall admit that I have not proceeded on the assumption that you embraced the foundational argument that has been the most influential assumption of the Protestant theory of development: the acute Hellenization of early Christianity (i.e. “Protestantism 101”).


>>Nor does a CLEAR text allow for more than one consistent interpretive trajectory.

I would make a similar request with this. I can't believe your entire library consists of Scott Hahn and Patrick Madrid books, and if I recall, you are a convert. You must have something that delves into this. You mean to tell me you've never read anything that would answer this type of question? I find your points rather elementary.>>


Me: Perhaps I have read too many answers. Which one of the numerous theories do you espouse?


>>One last point: do you differentiate between "truism" and presupposition?>>


Me: A truism is the logical product of propositions; as such, a truism is not a presupposition.


Grace and peace (btw, I in all sincerity hope, and pray, that you receive both),

David

Saint and Sinner said...

"Me: You have switched the topic from the Scriptures to tradition in order to support your “nonsequitur” charge. Let’s stay on topic."

Actually, the topic was both sola fide AND the bodily assumption. Scripture AND tradition. Stay on topic.

"Me: History."

I wish that he'd apply this same standard to the determination of the canon. Also, Eastern Orthodoxy is FAR closer to the N/PN church than Rome. That's all too easy to prove.

"Me: Well, to start with, all the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils that dealt with faith and morals."

The issue was how we know that those decrees of those councils were indeed part of the apostolic tradition uttered by the apostles. If when asked how one knows that the decrees of the Church are indeed in line with apostolic doctrine, the Romanist usually answers, "Tradition". When asked how he knows what Tradition is, he answers, "The decrees of the Church." Petitio Principii.

Also, let's not forget where much of Rome's soteriological "Tradition" came from:

“…it is necessary to observe that the early theologians of the western church were dependant upon their Latin versions of the Bible, and approached their texts and their subject with a set of presuppositions which owed more to the Latin language and culture than to Christianity itself. The initial transference of a Hebrew concept to a Greek, and subsequently to a Latin, context point to a fundamental alteration in the concepts of ‘justification’ and ‘righteousness’ as the gospel spread from its Palestinian source to the western world...The earlier patristic period represents the age of the exploration of concepts, when the proclamation of the gospel within a pagan culture was accompanied by an exploitation of both Hellenistic culture and pagan philosophy as vehicles for theological advancement…Indeed, by the end of the fourth century, the Greek fathers had formulated a teaching on human free will based upon philosophical rather than biblical foundations. Standing in the great Platonic tradition, heavily influenced by Philo, and reacting against the fatalisms of their day, they taught that man was utterly free in his choice of good or evil…It is quite possible that the curious and disturbing tendency of the early fathers to minimize original sin and emphasize the freedom of fallen man is a consequence of their anti-Gnostic polemic…Justin’s anti-fatalist arguments can be adduced from practically any of the traditional pagan refutations of astral fatalisms, going back to the second century B.C.”
–Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, 2nd edition (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, reprinted 1998), pp.15, 17, 19, 20.

Rhology said...

David,

You have switched the topic from the Scriptures to tradition in order to support your “nonsequitur” charge.

The question was on clarity. The RC's alternative to a non-clear Scr is an allegedly-clear tradition.

History.

Said the Eastern Orthodox.
Wow, this is going great.

I am merely relying on statements made by fairly prominent Protestant authors/apologists.

Citations, please? I'm genuinely interested.

Have you been able to persuade the Protestant pastor of the following online piece of this?

As if the rightness of the argument is dependent on whether it persuades Joe Blow.

Well, to start with, all the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils that dealt with faith and morals.

Smokescreen. We're asking for ALL of 'em.

I trust in the work of blessed Trinity to bring about the salvation of all who place their faith in God to accomplish that end.

Does your justification require works that YOU have to do?
We all know what the answer must be. Let's not play semantic games.


eie,

these are not claims made by The Church, they are the claims of Christ. If you have trouble with them, argue with Him.

If I could restate what Carrie was saying:
Can you prove to us that the claims you are making, for whose support you appeal to these Scr psgs, cannot be satisfied by Eastern Orthodoxy? They make the same claims

This is not a new theme around here. I'd like to hear your take on it.

no I can't prove that these claims cannot be satisfied by Eastern Orthodoxy, nor would I try to do so, as they apply rather well.

Wow, others have tried. Failed, but tried.
OK, now I'd like to know how I can tell, then, that RCC is the True Church and not EOC.

I believe the Catholic Church is best represented in the Roman Rite.

Why?

Eastern Orthodox Catholics by no means suffer from the self-defeating claim of dis-continuity that TULIP reformers embrace as a matter of doctrine their own doctrine.

Which has yet to be demonstrated.

why should I criticize the Orthodox Church which has demonstrated consistent theology and makes a good case for succession throughout her own history?

B/c you're not a member of that church. Surely there's at least one reason why.

They believe that they are the same Church as Jesus founded.

As do you.
As do JWs.
As do LDS.
That's why we want to know how to pick between them.

We see that the Church Proper must be all of these.
1 One
2 Holy
3 Catholic
4 Apostolic


Why must it be?
And of course, I would argue that the Sola Scriptura faith fulfills those while the Sola Ecclesia faiths fail.

In light of the differences between Protestants with not only Catholics but with each other,

Red herring. A commonly-used one, but red herring nonetheless. We're talking about who is right here, not who has more denominations to their name.

the history of a relatively minor issues such as "filioque" being enough of a disparity that the church should divide over them testifies more to the weight of both Church's claims of unity and common history than against it.

Very clever - "we're divided but we're really unified!"
Why can't I use the same argument for Sola Scriptura churches?

Peace,
Rhology

e i e said...

"Protestants claim that there was always a remnant, and that even now there is such a faction that holds this "pure" gospel"

Do they? Documentation of this "remnant" would be interesting. All I ever see is their claiming Augustine or Clement as one of their own--which is of course more laughable than anything else.

Where are the "remnant" writings? where may I go to know what the remnant Church living the "pure gospel" was like in the years 150 through 1500? This would illuminate the Protestant case so well and properly destroy the myth that the 5-point, TULIP message is "another gospel," I'm simply astounded that Carrie hasn't trotted it out yet!


E i E

e i e said...

"Why can't I use the same argument for Sola Scriptura churches?"

Duh. It's because you are divided and NOT unified. The illustration I cited was in fact an excellent one. Many centuries after the schism Eastern and Western Catholics still have more in common than most protestant denominations have a year after they go their own ways. The official differences between Orthodox and Roman rite Churches compared with the official differences between Protestant denominations and even practice form say, one Baptist congregation to another are nowhere near the same league. Golly. Most of your local churches even have to "audition" their clergy to be sure that their own ordained pastors get it right: meaning interpret scripture and doctrine the way the locals do and perhaps entertain the crowd well enough.

Enough is Enough, already.

Carrie said...

Secondly, no I can't prove that these claims cannot be satisfied by Eastern Orthodoxy, nor would I try to do so, as they apply rather well. Who told you that I think otherwise?

You should be more careful in your arguments then since you said “The real difference in argument I see then is that Catholics believe the church today is the same Church that Jesus founded.”

So, which Church did Jesus found? The RCC or the EO? Both claim to be the ONE true Church so two doesn’t work.

If you would like to backtrack on the one true Church founded by Christ and argue instead for an invisible body of believers, then we can agree.

Carrie said...

In all honesty, you need to be talking to Carrie on this for she is the one who believes ALL the decrees formulated in the great Councils are CLEAR.

No, David. If the arguments by RC e-pologists for the certainty and clarity that is needed and provided by an infallible magisterium are to hold any water, then you need to stop developing infallible, supposedly-clear council decrees. You guys need to pick between clarity/certainty and development.

Grand Inquisitor of the Great Inquisition said...

Grand Inquisitor Said:

"Quite simply, then, there is needed a historical record and presence of what ever this pure gospel group was, who were they, what did they believe, and what are the witnesses who say these things, and by what standard are they right, and the RC's wrong, and by what standard are we to know what is the true interpretation of that standard, and, also, how can we be sure of this standard, where did it come from, and where is the evidence?"

Carrie Said:
"Try the Bible!"

Grand Inquisitor responds:

The Bible unfortunately ends after the addition of Revelation by the last Apostle, it does not serve as a testament to what the Christians held up to the Reformation, thus, it cannot serve as an historical record of the beliefs of a defined Christian creed. Thus, *what creed has always been held from the time of the Apostles until our present time?

* Who has held this creed all of this time, what Christian creed/sect has this "pure gospel"?

* Have they always believed this same creed, and what are the witnesses that testify to this fact?

* By what rule of faith does this sect claim that they have the "pure gospel" and another Christian sect does not?

* How can we be sure of this standard/rule of doctrine?

* Where did this standard/rule of doctrine originate?

* Where is the historical evidence of the origin and consistency of this rule of doctrine?

These are the questions that were posed, Carrie answers that the Bible fills all of these. Let us see how this would fit in:

"Thus, what creed has always been held from the time of the Apostles until our present time?"

The Bible.

indeed, but by whose understanding/rendering of it? Indeed, an established Creed, many creeds there are of Christians all of whom claim that they are scripturally based, they cannot all be, for they are all either contradictory, or they do not all contain the same contents, otherwise, there would be no difference, but we know that there is, for there are many beliefs, many sects of Christians. Which one of these creeds has always been held, from the time of the Apostles?

Who has held this creed all of this time, what Christian creed/sect has this "pure gospel"?

The Bible is a class/body of believers? Since when?

Have they always believed this same creed, and what are the witnesses that testify to this fact?

The Bible, again, is not a body of believers, and does not testify to the historical beliefs of Christians, it ended in the earliest days of Christianity, thus, it cannot contain for us a record of what has transpired since its completetion. This answer is insufficient.

By what rule of faith does this sect claim that they have the "pure gospel" and another Christian sect does not?

The Bible is a body of Christians? Really, this is no answer.

How can we be sure of this standard/rule of doctrine?

The Bible. Yet, if the question were asked, how can we be sure of the Bible? What would be our answer?

Where did this standard/rule of doctrine originate?

The Bible, really? And suppose we were asked the origin of the Bible?

Where is the historical evidence of the origin and consistency of this rule of doctrine?

The Bible, hmmm, the Bible is a history text book of the Early Christians all the way till the present? Not quite, Martin Luther's name, nor any other Christian since the death of John the Evangelist is not contained therein, it provides no historical evidence of the events that have transpired since its completion, does not contain historical evidence of a constantly held creed, is not sufficient to satisfy the inquiries.

Does anyone else want to take up the Inquisitor's Challenge?

E i E said...

"We see that the Church Proper must be all of these.
1 One
2 Holy
3 Catholic
4 Apostolic

Why must it be?


The ancient credos of Christendom tell us these are the four hallmarks of the true Church. We believe they accurately represent what the Church has recieved not only through scripture but also through Apostolic instruction and sacred tradition.

And of course, I would argue that the Sola Scriptura faith fulfills those...

And you would argue without justification as they do not, as clearly illustrated and also as often testified against according to your own denial of Apostolic authoriy. Your own testimony and the testimony of history demonstrate your argument's failure.
...while the Sola Ecclesia faiths fail.

Perhaps they do, but that has nothing to do with the Catholic Church, which as we both know, does not teach, practice or believe "sola ecclesia."

Perhaps we should aknowledge "sola scrioptura" churches for what they truly are: "sola anthropos:" by man alone, since each man decides for himself what is and is not revelation and then decides what each revelation means, which each will follow and then pronounces who is and is not saved based upon that utterly subjective, personal revelation.

Yeah, we see THAT church all through history--not.

E i E

Carrie said...

Does anyone else want to take up the Inquisitor's Challenge?

God’s Word will answer all the important questions. If you want to know about who held the pure gospel, check out the NT. After that, whoever is in disagreement with the gospel proclaimed by Christ and witnessed to (historically) by the Apostles is wrong.

If you want to choose to follow history over God’s Word, that is your choice. But it is a poor choice.

e i e said...

"You should be more careful in your arguments then since you said “The real difference in argument I see then is that Catholics believe the church today is the same Church that Jesus founded.”

So, which Church did Jesus found? The RCC or the EO? Both claim to be the ONE true Church so two doesn’t work."

Read my response again. I answered this.

E i E

e i e said...

"If you want to choose to follow history over God’s Word, that is your choice"

False dichotomy and very lame straw man there Carrie. Seriously, this is shabbier than your usual. The Word of God does not contradict history.

E i E

Grand Inquisitor of the Great Inquisition said...

Grand Inquisitor Stated:

"Protestants claim that there was always a remnant, and that even now there is such a faction that holds this "pure" gospel"

EIE stated:

"Do they? Documentation of this "remnant" would be interesting. All I ever see is their claiming Augustine or Clement as one of their own--which is of course more laughable than anything else."

They so claim. Documentation and/or testimony of the continued existence of such a remnant is exactly what is being asked for.
Empty claims will not suffice for witnesses on the witness stand.

RC's claim a continued tradition, Prots claim a continued remnant.
Both disclaim the other, thus, what is the creed to be held, they cannot both suffice, either the Prots are correct, in which case they would need to demonstrate their case, or the RC's are correct, in which case their claims would have to substantiated as well.

"Where are the "remnant" writings?"

This would be a part of the testament to the consistently continued creed of the Christians that has been inquired of all here.

"where may I go to know what the remnant Church living the "pure gospel" was like in the years 150 through 1500?"

This is what is inquired of all here, only up until the present in this case.

"This would illuminate the Protestant case so well and properly destroy the myth that the 5-point, TULIP message is "another gospel," I'm simply astounded that Carrie hasn't trotted it out yet!"

It would prove anyone's case, EIE, would you care to attempt to satisfy these inquiries?

e i e said...

"God’s Word will answer all the important questions. If you want to know about who held the pure gospel, check out the NT. "

Show me the holders of the "true gospel" in the year, 250, Carrie. Why didn't they write anything? Were they so oppressed by the Catholic church that they couldn't?

E i E

Grand Inquisitor of the Great Inquisition said...

Grand Inquisitor inquired:

"*what creed has always been held from the time of the Apostles until our present time?

* Who has held this creed all of this time, what Christian creed/sect has this "pure gospel"?

* Have they always believed this same creed, and what are the witnesses that testify to this fact?

* By what rule of faith does this sect claim that they have the "pure gospel" and another Christian sect does not?

* How can we be sure of this standard/rule of doctrine?

* Where did this standard/rule of doctrine originate?

* Where is the historical evidence of the origin and consistency of this rule of doctrine?"


Carrie answers:

"God’s Word will answer all the important questions. If you want to know about who held the pure gospel, check out the NT. After that, whoever is in disagreement with the gospel proclaimed by Christ and witnessed to (historically) by the Apostles is wrong.

If you want to choose to follow history over God’s Word, that is your choice. But it is a poor choice."


Grand Inquisitor Responds:

The Inquisition is asking "who are Christians, who have they been, are they the same?" These are the essential questions of the above inquiries, which demand satisfaction.

Decree:

The Bible, as noted in the inquisition's last session does not suffice to answer all of these inquiries.

Sentence:

Mandation of the satisfaction of the inquiries positioned by the Grand Mastor of the Great Inquisition, quoted above, is anyone willing to answer them?

e i e said...

"It would prove anyone's case, EIE, would you care to attempt to satisfy these inquiries?"

You've GOT to be joking! Do you REALLY want me to start a cut and past festival of everything I can find that was written by Catholic writers from the second century to the 16th, that demonstrate just how unreformed the believers were? It would take weeks, require hundreds of thousands of lines of text and you wouldn't bother reading it. You'd just claim there was a "remnant" anyway, and continue to fail to provide ONE document they produced that demonstrates all TULIP doctrines for over 14 centuries. Remeber, YOU claim there is no doctrinal development, so snarking about Catholics being able to cite development and you not is nonsense.

I'd laugh at you if it weren't also so very, very sad! Seriously, Enough is Enough!

Rhology said...

eie,

Documentation of this "remnant" would be interesting.
It's been done, but I forgot where. :-(
However, that doesn't mean that ECFs were RC or EO either. They don't match. If I have a problem, you have a problem.
Only I don't rely on them for my authority. You say you do, so that ordinarily would leave you in a bind, but your convenient escape hatch is the viva voce of the RCC. Sola Ecclesia.

what the remnant Church living the "pure gospel" was like in the years 150 through 1500?

One thing to remember is that it was a REMNANT. No one is necessarily expecting them to have written a whole lot.

It's because you are divided and NOT unified.

1) But you just admitted you are also divided and NOT unified.
2) I'll be happy to compare the SoBap Convention to RCC in terms of unity, if you want to compare apples to apples.
3) Or the unity between Sola SCrip churches and Sola Ecc churches.
I really would like an answer to my question.

Many centuries after the schism Eastern and Western Catholics still have more in common than most protestant denominations have a year after they go their own ways.

WITHIN the denomination?
How would you defend that statement for, say, the SBC?

even practice form say, one Baptist congregation to another are nowhere near the same league

Go ahead - back that up.

Most of your local churches even have to "audition" their clergy to be sure that their own ordained pastors get it right: meaning interpret scripture and doctrine the way the locals do and perhaps entertain the crowd well enough.

As opposed to NOT examining clergy for sexual deviancy and liberalism? To NOT checking out how they would teach the Bible?
See, since we think teaching the Scr is a big priority, we have to test for those things. I don't want to go thru the hassle of hiring a teaching elder only to discover 3 months later that he's a flaming lib. I'd like to know ahead of time. RCC doesn't do a swell job of that either.

Show me the holders of the "true gospel" in the year, 250, Carrie. Why didn't they write anything? Were they so oppressed by the Catholic church that they couldn't?

I trust God to preserve His people in the way He sees fit though I don't necessarily know about that.
Read up here if you're really interested in the question.


Grand Inquisitor,

Ironic name. Seriously, that's creepy.

The Bible unfortunately ends after the addition of Revelation by the last Apostle, it does not serve as a testament to what the Christians held up to the Reformation

The question you're asking is a silly one to the SS-ist's ear. I don't care except as a matter of historical curiosity and contribution to OT and NT commentary and exegetical record what the ECFs believed. For doctrine, I'm looking to the Scr. The pure Gospel exists in the Scr, which precedes any Christian church, so my doctrine is older than any "ancient Christian doctrine".

Thus, *what creed has always been held from the time of the Apostles until our present time?

Bad question.
The answer to a GOOD question (What creed has been the right one to hold from the time of the Apostles until our present time?) would be the biblical creeds, 1 Cor 15 among them.

* Who has held this creed all of this time, what Christian creed/sect has this "pure gospel"?

Don't care who HELD it.
Who has it now? I dunno - anyone who holds it. Tautological, yes, but you asked a silly question.

By what rule of faith does this sect claim that they have the "pure gospel" and another Christian sect does not?

I'm not aware of a lot of people who aren't SS who hold to the correct Gospel, though there are some. Those traditions that lead them to accept the true Gospel (by accident, one might almost say) stem from the Reformation even though they're not doing the right thing in other areas of their theology, such as in the question of authority.

How can we be sure of this standard/rule of doctrine?

SS is rational and biblically supported.

Where did this standard/rule of doctrine originate?

God.

Where is the historical evidence of the origin and consistency of this rule of doctrine?

Here among other places.

indeed, but by whose understanding/rendering of it?

Irrelevant.

an established Creed, many creeds there are of Christians all of whom claim that they are scripturally based, they cannot all be, for they are all either contradictory, or they do not all contain the same contents

Which is why we test them all by Scr.
It seems you may be seeing the same problem as we do with these creeds, which is progress.

Peace,
Rhology

Anonymous said...

Who here actually buys the "Remnant" theory?

Show of virtual hands?

Anonymous said...

Rhobology, your link didn't lead to any "Remanant "documents that I could see, or are you saying this is a "Remnant" Web site? Neat trick, that.

Rhology said...

Which link?

And it's "remnant" not "remanant".

Rhology said...

And my handle is "Rhology" not "Rhobology".

Grand Inquisitor of the Great Inquisition said...

Grand Inquisitor stated:"It would prove anyone's case, EIE, would you care to attempt to satisfy these inquiries?"

EIE resonds:"You've GOT to be joking!"

I am not.

"Do you REALLY want me to start a cut and past festival of everything I can find that was written by Catholic writers from the second century to the 16th, that demonstrate just how unreformed the believers were?"

That would help, but I am asking simply for citations, who have been the Christians, some names, of some early Christians, going all the way until now, who all held one and the same creed, the one creed that you claim is true. You must be able to show that your creed is apostolic in two ways

*Show that the Apostles believed so.
*Show that the proposed creed is one that dates back to the Apostles, from whom was it recieved, has it always been the true apostolic creed of all time?

"It would take weeks, require hundreds of thousands of lines of text and you wouldn't bother reading it."

It would take minutes to paste a couple of names of some persons who lived during the 100's who believed as you do, and also [at least one] for the 200's, 300's 400's ect, or, if this cannot be done, what insitution or documentation can you cite to demonstrate your claim of apostolicity?

"You'd just claim there was a "remnant" anyway, and continue to fail to provide ONE document they produced that demonstrates all TULIP doctrines for over 14 centuries."

You know that not, I posed some questions, questions that need answering, questions that would authenticate via historical evidence the authenticity of your sect as THE Christian sect.

"Remeber, YOU claim there is no doctrinal development, so snarking about Catholics being able to cite development and you not is nonsense."

I? Hmmm, demonstrate where I have claimed such. I ask Protestants, as well as Catholics the same questions, who can answer them, in just a few citations, as to the historicity of their creed?

I'd laugh at you if it weren't also so very, very sad! Seriously, Enough is Enough!

Then I take it that you will not do so, in which case I may logically conclude that you cannot do so.

e i e said...

"The question was on clarity. The RC's alternative to a non-clear Scr is an allegedly-clear tradition."

Strange, since the Catholic view on revelation is that we "see through a glass darkly." Oh wait, isn't that also the CLEAR teaching of Scripture itself?

You know Rhobology, buddie, you have a real problem saying all of scripture is CLEAR when the CLEAR message of scripture is that we do not really see CLEARLY, is that CLEAR?

E i E

e i e said...

""Remeber, YOU claim there is no doctrinal development, so snarking about Catholics being able to cite development and you not is nonsense."

I? Hmmm, demonstrate where I have claimed such. I ask Protestants, as well as Catholics the same questions, who can answer them, in just a few citations, as to the historicity of their creed?


Sorry! I mistook you for Carrie making the case for the "Remnant." My bad.

Obviously, sometimes I just don't see things clearly.

E i E

Rhology said...

eie,

the Catholic view on revelation is that we "see through a glass darkly." Oh wait, isn't that also the CLEAR teaching of Scripture itself?

This is the 2nd time in the past 2 days when you've wrenched a psg completely out of its context in order to make a puerile point.
You don't understand Scr b/c you can't or won't even attempt to properly exegete.

And my handle is "Rhology" not "Rhobology".

Peace,
Rhology not Rhobology

Rhology said...

Ah, Grand Inquisitor, it seems you're playing a 3rd side here. I mistook you at 1st. My mistake.

I'd throw in, related to what GI is saying, that Vatican I claims that its doctrines have been the constant faith of the universal church.

And doesn't EOC say its Sacred Tradition is that which has been held "everywhere, at all times, by all" or sthg similar? (Quoting Vincent de Lerins, is it?)

e i e said...

"It would take minutes to paste a couple of names of some persons who lived during the 100's who believed as you do, and also [at least one] for the 200's, 300's 400's ect, or, if this cannot be done, what insitution or documentation can you cite to demonstrate your claim of apostolicity?"

Far better would be for you to do your own search of the this blog and others for comments regarding Church fathers and the writings of Church leaders throughout time. Better still read the entire documents themselves and avoid my filtering or anybody else's. I suggest you strat with Justin, Polycarp, Clement, and Augustine; then work your way thjrough time to Aquinas. And yes, it would take many weeks reading many thousands of lines.

E i E

Rhology said...

Far better would be for you to do your own search...

TRANSLATION: I can't do that. Just trust me - the ECFs all agree with me and my church. Seriously, trust us! We're infallible.

e i e said...

"This is the 2nd time in the past 2 days when you've wrenched a psg completely out of its context in order to make a puerile point.

It is cited correctly (Read the entire passage) and it makes a clear point. Please, just because the scripture disagrees with you, you need not call it purile. I thought you claimed a high view of scripture--or is it actually just a high view of your personal take on what you want it to mean?

E i E

Grand Inquisitor of the Great Inquisition said...

Rhology responds to the Inquiries:

"Grand Inquisitor,

Ironic name. Seriously, that's creepy."


I like it, it suits its purpose.

"posed by GI: The Bible unfortunately ends after the addition of Revelation by the last Apostle, it does not serve as a testament to what the Christians held up to the Reformation"

Rhology: The question you're asking is a silly one to the SS-ist's ear. I don't care except as a matter of historical curiosity and contribution to OT and NT commentary and exegetical record what the ECFs believed. For doctrine, I'm looking to the Scr. The pure Gospel exists in the Scr, which precedes any Christian church, so my doctrine is older than any "ancient Christian doctrine".

It is not a silly question, suppose one wanted to convert to the true Christian faith, and he were to ask which one it is, which is the question here being posed, which one is it? The Pure gospel does indeed exist in the scripture, but what rendering of it is correct?
Is this rendering original?

That is the question.

GI: "Thus, *what creed has always been held from the time of the Apostles until our present time?"

"Bad question.
The answer to a GOOD question (What creed has been the right one to hold from the time of the Apostles until our present time?) would be the biblical creeds, 1 Cor 15 among them."

You mean very good question, who are the Christians, are we sure of that? Can we look back and see this?


"Don't care who HELD it.
Who has it now? I dunno - anyone who holds it. Tautological, yes, but you asked a silly question.


But I DO CARE who held it, I want assurance that if I join a Christian sect, I am joining the right one. Who has it now? is very important question for everyone, for upon it rests whether or not one has the pure gospel, plain and simple.

Rhology said: "I'm not aware of a lot of people who aren't SS who hold to the correct Gospel, though there are some. Those traditions that lead them to accept the true Gospel (by accident, one might almost say) stem from the Reformation even though they're not doing the right thing in other areas of their theology, such as in the question of authority."

What is this pure gospel? By what rendering/understanding/interpretation of it do you judge who has it right and who has it wrong? By what standard, before you say scripture, I will add that the others also use that standard, how then, can you claim that they are erroneous and you are not, when you both claim the same standard?

"SS is rational and biblically supported."

Can you demonstrate this fact?

"Where did this standard/rule of doctrine originate?"

God.

Can you substantiate that claim?

Where is the historical evidence of the origin and consistency of this rule of doctrine?

"Here among other places."

can you please cite a few examples?

"indeed, but by whose understanding/rendering of it?

Irrelevant."

It is not, for what rendering/understanding of the scripture must I have if I join Christianity?

"an established Creed, many creeds there are of Christians all of whom claim that they are scripturally based, they cannot all be, for they are all either contradictory, or they do not all contain the same contents"

"Which is why we test them all by Scr.
It seems you may be seeing the same problem as we do with these creeds, which is progress."

But by whose rendering/understanding/interpretation of it? To whom do I approach for a definite true Christian creed?

e i e said...

"Far better would be for you to do your own search...

TRANSLATION: I can't do that. Just trust me - the ECFs all agree with me and my church. Seriously, trust us! We're infallible.

Rhobology:
No silly, I DID answer him, citing various authors over some time periods, which is what he asked for. I also said it woulf be much better for him to check it out for himself rather than get it filtered from me or you--especially you. You Sola Anthopos types really do want everything to mean only what you want it to mean, doncha?

E i E

Rhology said...

eie,

It is "cited" correctly, yes. But it's out of context. Perhaps you could show us where Scr is discussed in that psg.

Your POINT is puerile, not the Scr psg.
Dang, man, you have problems interping simple comments in a blog combox. Why would anyone trust you to present a trustworthy interp of Scr, especially when you make such egregious errors? Speaking of "personal takes" on Scr...

Peace,
Rhology

Rhology said...

hi GI of the GI,

which one is it?

The biblical one. AKA the consistent one.

The Pure gospel does indeed exist in the scripture, but what rendering of it is correct?

Hmm, could you elucidate on this question please?

But I DO CARE who held it

Fine, but that's a separate question than what was brought up in this blogpost.
You're asking about historical curiosities and the early church. Since that's the case, stop mixing in the "what is the Gospel?" terminology and confusing the issue.

What is this pure gospel? By what rendering/understanding/interpretation of it do you judge who has it right and who has it wrong?

The biblical one.
Is this really the 1st time you've ever discussed this with a Reformed Babdist?

before you say scripture, I will add that the others also use that standard

Just b/c others use it badly and incorrectly doesn't mean I'm disqualified from claiming it and using it. That does not follow.

how then, can you claim that they are erroneous and you are not, when you both claim the same standard?

B/c it's not enough to CLAIM it. It must be backed up with arguments.

Can you demonstrate this fact?
Can you substantiate that claim?


Yes.

can you please cite a few examples?

That's what the book is for, my friend.

for what rendering/understanding of the scripture must I have if I join Christianity?

The consistent, rational, biblical one. The bonus is that there's only one kind that fits all three adjectives.


Peace,
Rhology

Grand Inquisitor of the Great Inquisition said...

EIE responds to the Inquisitor:
"Far better would be for you to do your own search of the this blog and others for comments regarding Church fathers and the writings of Church leaders throughout time. Better still read the entire documents themselves and avoid my filtering or anybody else's. I suggest you strat with Justin, Polycarp, Clement, and Augustine; then work your way thjrough time to Aquinas. And yes, it would take many weeks reading many thousands of lines."

Just cite some examples of some historical persons who held your creed, or, some documents that support your creed. That would take minutes, and it should not be hard for you to think of a few Christians who believed as you do.

e i e said...

"But by whose rendering/understanding/interpretation of it? To whom do I approach for a definite true Christian creed?"

If you;re truly interested, I suggest you look to those who fashioned the creeds to find out what THEY thought they meant. Check out this one for an example: A Letter of Eusebius of Cæsarea to the people of his Diocese on the Council of Nicaea.
Decide for yourself.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2804.htm

E i E

PS, while you're reading, we can also look for theose "Remnant" documents that Rho and Carrie have been holding back on us.

Anonymous said...

"Just cite some examples of some historical persons who held your creed, or, some documents that support your creed. That would take minutes, and it should not be hard for you to think of a few Christians who believed as you do"

I suggest you start with Justin, Polycarp, Clement, and Augustine; then work your way thjrough time to Aquinas and you will follow a small sampling of the development of Christian doctrine in appostolic succession. Are we stuck on a loop? How many more times must I answer this for you? Do you want more names, or what?

E i E

Anonymous said...

E i E

I think he wants something like this:

Alexander of Alexandria [SAINT]
- Epistles on the Arian Heresy and the Deposition of Arius

Alexander of Lycopolis
- Of the Manicheans

Ambrose (340-397) [SAINT] [DOCTOR]
- On the Christian Faith (De fide)
- On the Holy Spirit
- On the Mysteries
- On Repentance
- On the Duties of the Clergy
- Concerning Virgins
- Concerning Widows
- On the Death of Satyrus
- Memorial of Symmachus
- Sermon against Auxentius
- Letters

Aphrahat/Aphraates (c. 280-367)
- Demonstrations

Archelaus
- Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes

Aristides the Philosopher
- The Apology

Arnobius
- Against the Heathen

Athanasius [SAINT] [DOCTOR]
- Against the Heathen
- On the Incarnation of the Word
- Deposition of Arius
- On Luke 10:22 (Matthew 11:27)
- Circular Letter
- Apologia Contra Arianos
- De Decretis
- De Sententia Dionysii
- Vita S. Antoni (Life of St. Anthony)
- Ad Episcopus Aegypti et Libyae
- Apologia ad Constantium
- Apologia de Fuga
- Historia Arianorum
- Four Discourses Against the Arians
- De Synodis
- Tomus ad Antiochenos
- Ad Afros Epistola Synodica
- Historia Acephala
- Letters

Athenagoras
- A Plea for the Christians
- The Resurrection of the Dead

Augustine of Hippo [SAINT] [DOCTOR]
- Confessions
- Letters
- City of God
- Christian Doctrine
- On the Holy Trinity
- The Enchiridion
- On the Catechising of the Uninstructed
- On Faith and the Creed
- Concerning Faith of Things Not Seen
- On the Profit of Believing
- On the Creed: A Sermon to Catechumens
- On Continence
- On the Good of Marriage
- On Holy Virginity
- On the Good of Widowhood
- On Lying
- To Consentius: Against Lying
- On the Work of Monks
- On Patience
- On Care to be Had For the Dead
- On the Morals of the Catholic Church
- On the Morals of the Manichaeans
- On Two Souls, Against the Manichaeans
- Acts or Disputation Against Fortunatus the Manichaean
- Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental
- Reply to Faustus the Manichaean
- Concerning the Nature of Good, Against the Manichaeans
- On Baptism, Against the Donatists
- Answer to Letters of Petilian, Bishop of Cirta
- Merits and Remission of Sin, and Infant Baptism
- On the Spirit and the Letter
- On Nature and Grace
- On Man's Perfection in Righteousness
- On the Proceedings of Pelagius
- On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin
- On Marriage and Concupiscence
- On the Soul and its Origin
- Against Two Letters of the Pelagians
- On Grace and Free Will
- On Rebuke and Grace
- On Rebuke and Grace
- The Predestination of the Saints/Gift of Perseverance
- Our Lord's Sermon on the Mount
- The Harmony of the Gospels
- Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament
- Tractates on the Gospel of John
- Homilies on the First Epistle of John
- Soliloquies
- The Enarrations, or Expositions, on the Psalms

Bardesanes (154-222)
- The Book of the Laws of Various Countries

Barnabas [SAINT]
- Epistle of Barnabas

Basil the Great [SAINT] [DOCTOR]
- De Spiritu Sancto
- Nine Homilies of Hexaemeron
- Letters

Caius
- Fragments

Clement of Alexandria [SAINT]
- Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved?
- Exhortation to the Heathen
- The Instructor
- The Stromata, or Miscellanies
- Fragments

Clement of Rome [SAINT]
- First Epistle
- Second Epistle [SPURIOUS]
- Two Epistles Concerning Virginity [SPURIOUS]
- Recognitions [SPURIOUS]

Commodianus
- Writings

Cyprian of Carthage [SAINT]
- The Life and Passion of Cyprian
- The Epistles of Cyprian
- The Treatises of Cyprian
- The Seventh Council of Carthage

Cyril of Jerusalem [SAINT] [DOCTOR]
- Catechetical Lectures

Dionysius of Rome [SAINT]
- Against the Sabellians

Dionysius the Great
- Extant Fragments
- Exegetical Fragments

Ephraim the Syrian (306-373) [SAINT] [DOCTOR]
- Nisibene Hymns
- Miscellaneous Hymns -- On the Nativity of Christ in the Flesh, For the Feast of the Epiphany, and On the Faith ("The Pearl")
- Homilies -- On Our Lord, On Admonition and Repentance, and On the Sinful Woman

Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 265-c. 340)
- Church History
- Life of Constantine
- Oration of Constantine "to the Assembly of the Saints"
- Oration in Praise of Constantine
- Letter on the Council of Nicaea

Gennadius of Marseilles
- Illustrious Men (Supplement to Jerome)

Gregory the Great, Pope (c. 540-604) [SAINT] [DOCTOR]
- Pastoral Rule
- Register of Letters

Gregory Nazianzen [SAINT] [DOCTOR]
- Orations
- Letters

Gregory of Nyssa [SAINT]
- Against Eunomius
- Answer to Eunomius' Second Book
- On the Holy Spirit (Against the Followers of Macedonius)
- On the Holy Trinity, and of the Godhead of the Holy Spirit (To Eustathius)
- On "Not Three Gods" (To Ablabius)
- On the Faith (To Simplicius)
- On Virginity
- On Infants' Early Deaths
- On Pilgrimages
- On the Making of Man
- On the Soul and the Resurrection
- The Great Catechism
- Funeral Oration on Meletius
- On the Baptism of Christ (Sermon for the Day of Lights)
- Letters

Gregory Thaumaturgus [SAINT]
- A Declaration of Faith
- A Metaphrase of the Book of Ecclesiastes
- Canonical Epistle
- The Oration and Panegyric Addressed to Origen
- A Sectional Confession of Faith
- On the Trinity
- Twelve Topics on the Faith
- On the Subject of the Soul
- On All the Saints
- On Matthew 6:22-23

Hermas
- The Pastor (or "The Shepherd")

Hilary of Poitiers [SAINT] [DOCTOR]
- On the Councils, or the Faith of the Easterns
- On the Trinity
- Homilies on the Psalms

Hippolytus [SAINT]
- The Refutation of All Heresies
- The Extant Works and Fragments of Hippolytus: Exegetical
- Expository Treatise Against the Jews
- Against Plato, On the Cause of the Universe
- Against the Heresy of Noetus
- Discourse on the Holy Theophany
- The Antichrist
- Appendix

Ignatius of Antioch [SAINT]
- Epistle to the Ephesians
- Epistle to the Magnesians
- Epistle to the Trallians
- Epistle to the Romans
- Epistle to the Philadelphians
- Epistle to the Smyraeans
- Epistle to Polycarp
- The Martyrdom of Ignatius
- The Spurious Epistles

Irenaeus of Lyons [SAINT]
- Adversus haereses
- Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus

Jerome [SAINT] [DOCTOR]
- Letters
- The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary
- To Pammachius Against John of Jerusalem
- The Dialogue Against the Luciferians
- The Life of Malchus, the Captive Monk
- The Life of S. Hilarion
- The Life of Paulus the First Hermit
- Against Jovinianus
- Against Vigilantius
- Against the Pelagians
- Prefaces
- De Viris Illustribus (Illustrious Men)
- Apology for himself against the Books of Rufinus

John of Damascus [SAINT] [DOCTOR]
- Exposition of the Faith

John Cassian (c. 360-c. 435)
- Institutes
- Conferences
- On the Incarnation of the Lord (Against Nestorius)

John Chrysostom [SAINT] [DOCTOR]
- Homilies on the Gospel of St. Matthew
- Homilies on Acts
- Homilies on Romans
- Homilies on First Corinthians
- Homilies on Second Corinthians
- Homilies on Ephesians
- Homilies on Philippians
- Homilies on Colossians
- Homilies on First Thessalonians
- Homilies on Second Thessalonians
- Homilies on First Timothy
- Homilies on Second Timothy
- Homilies on Titus
- Homilies on Philemon
- Commentary on Galatians
- Homilies on the Gospel of John
- Homilies on the Epistle to the Hebrews
- Homilies on the Statues
- No One Can Harm the Man Who Does Not Injure Himself
- Two Letters to Theodore After His Fall
- Letter to a Young Widow
- Homily on St. Ignatius
- Homily on St. Babylas
- Homily Concerning "Lowliness of Mind"
- Instructions to Catechumens
- Three Homilies on the Power of Satan
- Homily on the Passage "Father, if it be possible . . ."
- Homily on the Paralytic Lowered Through the Roof
- Homily on the Passage "If your enemy hunger, feed him."
- Homily Against Publishing the Errors of the Brethren
- First Homily on Eutropius
- Second Homily on Eutropius (After His Captivity)
- Four Letters to Olympias
- Letter to Some Priests of Antioch
- Correspondence with Pope Innocent I
- On the Priesthood

Julius Africanus
- Extant Writings

Justin Martyr [SAINT]
- First Apology
- Second Apology
- Dialogue with Trypho
- Hortatory Address to the Greeks
- On the Sole Government of God
- Fragments of the Lost Work on the Resurrection
- Miscellaneous Fragments from Lost Writings
- Martyrdom of Justin, Chariton, and other Roman Martyrs
- Discourse to the Greeks

Lactantius
- The Divine Institutes
- The Epitome of the Divine Institutes
- On the Anger of God
- On the Workmanship of God
- Of the Manner In Which the Persecutors Died
- Fragments of Lactantius
- The Phoenix
- A Poem on the Passion of the Lord

Leo the Great, Pope (c. 395-461) [SAINT] [DOCTOR]
- Sermons
- Letters

Malchion
- Extant Writings

Mar Jacob (452-521)
- Canticle on Edessa
- Homily on Habib the Martyr
- Homily on Guria and Shamuna

Mathetes
- Epistle to Diognetus

Methodius
- The Banquet of the Ten Virgins
- Concerning Free Will
- From the Discourse on the Resurrection
- Fragments
- Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna
- Oration on the Psalms
- Three Fragments from the Homily on the Cross and Passion of Christ
- Some Other Fragments

Minucius Felix
- Octavius

Moses of Chorene (c. 400-c. 490)
- History of Armenia

Novatian
- Treatise Concerning the Trinity
- On the Jewish Meats

Origen
- Origen de Principiis
- Africanus to Origen
- Origen to Africanus
- Origen to Gregory
- Origen Against Celsus
- Letter of Origen to Gregory
- Commentary on the Gospel of John
- Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew

Pamphilus [SAINT]
- Extant Writings

Papias [SAINT]
- Fragments

Peter of Alexandria [SAINT]
- The Genuine Acts of Peter
- The Canonical Epistle
- Fragments

Polycarp [SAINT]
- Epistle to the Philippians
- The Martyrdom of Polycarp

Rufinus
- Apology
- Commentary on the Apostles' Creed
- Prefaces

Socrates Scholasticus (c. 379-c. 450)
- Ecclesiastical History

Sozomen (c. 375-c. 447)
- Ecclesiastical History

Sulpitius Severus (c. 363-c. 420)
- On the Life of St. Martin
- Letters -- Genuine and Dubious
- Dialogues
- Sacred History

Tatian
- Address to the Greeks
- Fragments
- The Diatessaron

Tertullian
- The Apology
- On Idolatry
- De Spectaculis (The Shows)
- De Corona (The Chaplet)
- To Scapula
- Ad Nationes
- (A Fragment)
- An Answer to the Jews
- The Soul's Testimony
- A Treatise on the Soul
- The Prescription Against Heretics
- Against Marcion
- Against Hermogenes
- Against the Valentinians
- On the Flesh of Christ
- On the Resurrection of the Flesh
- Against Praxeas
- Scorpiace
- Appendix (Against All Heresies)
- On Repentance
- On Baptism
- On Prayer
- Ad Martyras
- The Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity (Sometimes attributed to Tertullian)
- Of Patience
- On the Pallium
- On the Apparel of Women
- On the Veiling of Virgins
- To His Wife
- On Exhortation to Chastity
- On Monogamy
- On Modesty
- On Fasting
- De Fuga in Persecutione

Theodoret
- Counter-Statements to Cyril's 12 Anathemas against Nestorius
- Ecclesiastical History
- Dialogues ("Eranistes" or "Polymorphus")
- Demonstrations by Syllogism
- Letters

Theodotus
- Excerpts

Theophilus
- Theophilus to Autolycus

Venantius
- Poem on Easter

Victorinus [SAINT]
- On the Creation of the World
- Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John

Vincent of Lérins (d. c. 450) [SAINT]
- Commonitory for the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith

OTHER WORKS

Liturgies
- The Liturgy of James
- The Liturgy of Mark
- The Liturgy of the Blessed Apostles

Councils
- Carthage under Cyprian (257) [LOCAL]
- Ancyra (314) [LOCAL]
- Neocaesarea (315) [LOCAL]
- Nicaea I (325) [ECUMENICAL]
- Antioch in Encaeniis (341) [LOCAL]
- Gangra (343) [LOCAL]
- Sardica (344) [LOCAL]
- Constantinople I (381) [ECUMENICAL]
- Constantinople (382) [LOCAL]
- Laodicea (390) [LOCAL]
- Constantinople under Nectarius (394) [LOCAL]
- Carthage (419) [LOCAL]
- Ephesus (431) [ECUMENICAL]
- Chalcedon (451) [ECUMENICAL]
- Constantinople II (553) [ECUMENICAL]
- Constantinople III (680) [ECUMENICAL]
- Constantinople/"Trullo"/Quinisext (692) [LOCAL]
- Nicaea II (787) [ECUMENICAL]

Apocrypha
- Apocalypse of Peter (c. 130)
- Protoevangelium of James (c. 150)
- Acts of Paul and Thecla (c. 180)
- Gospel of Peter (c. 190) [DOCETIC]
- The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (c. 192) [EBIONITIC]
- Acts of Peter and Paul (c. 200)
- Gospel of Thomas (c. 200) [GNOSTIC]
- Acts of Thomas (c. 240) [GNOSTIC]
- Acts of Thaddaeus (c. 250)
- Acts of Andrew (c. 260) [GNOSTIC]
- Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena (c. 270)
- Acts of John [DOCETIC]
- Acts of Philip (c. 350)
- Apocalypse of Paul (c. 380) -- Greek and Latin forms
- Gospel of Nicodemus (Including "Acta Pilati") (c. 150-400)
- The Doctrine of Addai (c. 400) -- This is a Syriac version of the earlier Acts of Thaddaeus (s.v.)
- Assumption of Mary (c. 400)
- History of Joseph the Carpenter (c. 400)
- Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew (c. 400)
- Acts of Barnabas (c. 500)
- Acts of Bartholomew (c. 500) [NESTORIAN]
- Acts and Martyrdom of St. Matthew the Apostle (c. 550) [ABYSSINIAN]
- Arabic Gospel of the Infancy of the Saviour (c. 600)
- Avenging of the Saviour (c. 700)
- Apocalypse of John (unknown date; late)
- Apocalypse of Moses (unknown date) [JUDAISTIC]
- Apocalypse of Esdras (unknown date) [JUDAISTIC]
- Testament of Abraham (unknown date) [JUDAISTIC]
- Narrative of Zosimus (unknown date)
- Gospel of the Nativity of Mary (unknown date; late)
- Narrative of Joseph of Arimathea (unknown date; late)
- Report of Pontius Pilate (unknown date; late) -- First Greek and Second Greek forms
- Letter of Pontius Pilate (unknown date; late)
- Giving Up of Pontius Pilate (unknown date; late)
- Death of Pilate (unknown date; late)
- Apocalypse of the Virgin (unknown date; very late)
- Apocalypse of Sedrach (unknown date; very late)

Miscellaneous
- The Didache (c. 100)
- The Passion of the Scillitan Martyrs (c. 180)
- A Treatise Against the Heretic Novatian (c. 255)
- A Treatise on Re-Baptism (c. 255)
- Remains of the Second and Third Centuries (various dates)
- Apostolic Constitutions (c. 400)
- Apostolic Canons (c. 400) -- See Apostolic Constitutions, Book VIII, Chapter 47
- Acts of Sharbil (unknown date) [SYRIAC]
- The Martyrdom of Barsamya (unknown date) [SYRIAC]
- Extracts from Various Books Concerning Abgar the King and Addaeus the Apostle (unknown date) [SYRIAC]
- The Teaching of the Apostles (unknown date) [SYRIAC]
- The Teaching of Simon Cephas in the City of Rome (unknown date) [SYRIAC]
- Martyrdom of Habib the Deacon (unknown date) [SYRIAC]
- Martyrdom of the Holy Confessors Shamuna, Guria, and Habib (unknown date) [SYRIAC]
- A Letter of Mara, Son of Serapion (unknown date) [SYRIAC]
- Ambrose (unknown date) [SYRIAC]
- Canons of the Thirteen Holy Fathers (various dates)
- The False Decretals (c. 850)

Grand Inquisitor of the Great Inquisition said...

Rhology to the Inquisitor:

hi GI of the GI,


Hi Rholly.

Rhol:The biblical one. AKA the consistent one.

Begging the question: Which one is biblical?

Rholly:"Hmm, could you elucidate on this question please?"

For sake of argument: Suppose the Bible is true, infallibly, it contains the pure gospel. All who hold this book as hold also so claim, all of which claim that they have the pure gospel, that does not make it so, so, who does have the pure gospel in your opinion, who renders/understands/interprets it [the scriptures, AKA the "pure gospel"] correctly in your opinion?

Rhology: "Fine, but that's a separate question than what was brought up in this blogpost.
You're asking about historical curiosities and the early church. Since that's the case, stop mixing in the "what is the Gospel?" terminology and confusing the issue."


I am asking what is the true understanding of the scripture, and who has this true understanding?

Rhology:"The biblical one.
Is this really the 1st time you've ever discussed this with a Reformed Babdist?"

Which one is truly biblical in your opinion? I've heard many Christians speak, and there are many churches and denominations in my area, my question is, which sect is the remnant, or has the "pure gospel" in your opinion?

Rhology: "Just b/c others use it badly and incorrectly doesn't mean I'm disqualified from claiming it and using it. That does not follow."

How do you decide whether others use it badly or incorrectly, by what understanding/rendering of the scriptures do you make that judgement?

Rhology: "B/c it's not enough to CLAIM it. It must be backed up with arguments."

Indeed.

GI:"Can you demonstrate this fact?
Can you substantiate that claim?"

Rhology:"Yes."

Then do so.

GI: "can you please cite a few examples?"

Rholly:"That's what the book is for, my friend."

Which book would that be?

Rholly:"The consistent, rational, biblical one. The bonus is that there's only one kind that fits all three adjectives."


Which one is rational and biblical in your opinion?

Anonymous said...

And if Rhology again asks, where's the list of infallibles, point him to these Councils:

- Nicaea I (325) [ECUMENICAL]
- Constantinople I (381) [ECUMENICAL]
- Ephesus (431) [ECUMENICAL]
- Chalcedon (451) [ECUMENICAL]
- Constantinople II (553) [ECUMENICAL]
- Constantinople III (680) [ECUMENICAL]
- Nicaea II (787) [ECUMENICAL]

Grand Inquisitor of the Great Inquisition said...

EIE,

Thank you very much, that is more than I have gotten so far, now, from the death of the last one of those names, until now, who has continued in that line of belief, say, after aquinas?
And did he believe the same as they did?

Thank you in advance.

e i e said...

"Rholly:"The consistent, rational, biblical one. The bonus is that there's only one kind that fits all three adjectives."


Which one is rational and biblical in your opinion?


He means "the bible!"

LOL! All he is really saying is that he KNOWS which chuch is the "biblical" church because it agrees with how he personally inteprets the bible. The authority and judgement is Rholly's alone! I was joking about sola anthropos, and by golly he actually professes it!

Astounding!

E i E

Rhology said...

GI,

Begging the question: Which one is biblical?

The one extracted from the biblical text thru correct exegesis.

who does have the pure gospel in your opinion, who renders/understands/interprets it [the scriptures, AKA the "pure gospel"] correctly in your opinion?

You're asking who, in my opinion, holds the pure gospel? Well, Reformed Babdists, of course, among others. Sola Fide and all.

I am asking what is the true understanding of the scripture, and who has this true understanding?

The true understanding of the Scriptural Gospel is that justification is by grace alone thru faith alone to the glory of God alone.
Who has it? Whoever has it. Again, it's a strange question that leads to a tautological answer.

How do you decide whether others use it badly or incorrectly, by what understanding/rendering of the scriptures do you make that judgement?

Interestingly, I dealt with that recently.

Then do so.

Don't have time to right now. Check out that book I linked to.

Peace,
Rhology

Anonymous said...

GI:

You're already into some 700 years of the "apostacy." Something tells me you didn't read these in between postings. Why don't you catch up and see what falls out so far? At any rate, I'm not doing E i E's research for him.

Grand Inquisitor of the Great Inquisition said...

"Rholly:"The consistent, rational, biblical one. The bonus is that there's only one kind that fits all three adjectives."


Which one is rational and biblical in your opinion?

He means "the bible!"


My question:

Who decides what is biblical and rational, and, by what understanding of the scriptures?

LOL! All he is really saying is that he KNOWS which chuch is the "biblical" church

Now, which sect/body of believers has the correct understanding of the Bible, and by what understanding or interpretation of the scriptures, or rather, rule of doctrine, creed, is that decided?


The authority and judgement


Is exactly what I am asking for.

Rhology said...

Anon,

And if Rhology again asks, where's the list of infallibles, point him to these Councils:

Is that the only list?
Not Vatican 1? Not Trent?
Not Florence?

Not Ineffabilis Deus? Not Indulgentiarum Doctrina?

Whatever your answer, how do you know?

he KNOWS which chuch is the "biblical" church because it agrees with how he personally inteprets the bible.

1) Ah, the old canard.
2) How do YOU know which church is the right one, then?
3) I didn't pick which church agreed with ME. I went to the one whose doctrine agrees with the Scr.
4) Is it wrong to say that you go to the church that you think agrees with Scr and tradition? If so, how is that any different than what you've said about me?

Peace,
Rhology

Rhology said...

GI,

The Scr is clear enough to make God's meaning clear.
It is self-interping.
God has not provided for an infallible interpreter of the Scr to be the final authority for His church. His Word is the final authority.
Hopefully that will help. You're grasping at things that aren't there. What you imply and what our RC friends here make explicit is one and the same denial that Scr is clear enough and that God has clearly communicated His Word so that people can understand it.

And don't forget to apply the exact same questions to those who believe in Sola Ecclesia. Their tradition needs to be examined in the same light as well.


Peace,
Rhology

Grand Inquisitor of the Great Inquisition said...

Rhology responds to the Inquisitor:The one extracted from the biblical text thru correct exegesis.

What is the correct exegesis?

Rholly:"You're asking who, in my opinion, holds the pure gospel? Well, Reformed Babdists, of course, among others. Sola Fide and all."

Right, so, you're telling me that more than one separate sect believes exactly the same thing, and is totally in line with the scriptures you profess? Why are there more than one group of you, why don't you all just be one?
Further, by what interpretation of the Bible do you decide this?

"The true understanding of the Scriptural Gospel is that justification is by grace alone thru faith alone to the glory of God alone."

How do you determine that this is the true understanding [local pastor could not tell me]?

Who has it? Whoever has it. Again, it's a strange question that leads to a tautological answer.

And who is that? You just said the Baptists, so why do you pretend here to not have an answer?


How do you decide whether others use it badly or incorrectly, by what understanding/rendering of the scriptures do you make that judgement?

GI: obviously I'm getting no where.


Then do so.

Don't have time to right now.


Please do when you do have the time.

Check out that book I linked to.

All things according to the permission of time and availability.

Grand Inquisitor.

e i e said...

"The Scr is clear enough to make God's meaning clear.
It is self-interping.
God has not provided for an infallible interpreter of the Scr to be the final authority for His church. His Word is the final authority"


Pure assertion and in contradiction to Scripture itself. that assures that it is the Church that is the pillar of Truth. Scripture does not say what you say. In fact, it tells us to hold on to what was written to us and what is spoken. The very writers we cite as its authors spoke and wrote with authority and cited Jesus own giving as that authority as proof--all BEFORE a new testament was written. The first-century church was not sola scriptura--as there wasn't a scriptura to follow solely--and the latter century churches were not, as evidenced by more documentation than you could read in a month of Sundays. So what have we? A “Remnant” church that hid itself utterly for 15 centuries, living under a doctrine of sola scriptura that didn't exist until the 16th century all in a church that dogmatically asserts there is no doctrinal development?

Your case gets weaker the more you present it. You should have quit while you were merely one and a half millennia behind.

E I E

Grand Inquisitor of the Great Inquisition said...

The Scr is clear enough to make God's meaning clear."

So you say.

It is self-interping.

Not from my experience, all the Christians around me all interpret it differently, and then, even those of you who here comment.

"God has not provided for an infallible interpreter of the Scr to be the final authority for His church."

In other words you cannot tell me how you know that you are right, you "just are right".
I just have to believe that you are right, with no proof?

His Word is the final authority.

Alright, I assume the "His" refers to your divine being, and where can I go to find this "final authority" if it is your bible, then I am back where I started, confused. Who are the true Christians, and can that be demonstrated via history and consistency?

"Hopefully that will help."

It does not.

"You're grasping at things that aren't there."

The "pure gospel" is not there?
The true Christian understanding of your holy book does not exist?
How can any of you ever be sure that you are understanding your holy book correctly?

"What you imply and what our RC friends here make explicit is one and the same denial that Scr is clear enough and that God has clearly communicated His Word so that people can understand it."

How come so many misunderstand it? As you say there are those who do so misinterpret it, but you neglect to tell me how you know that.

"And don't forget to apply the exact same questions to those who believe in Sola Ecclesia. Their tradition needs to be examined in the same light as well.

I have been all along, just read above.

Rhology said...

GI,

Your questions are very tiresome. You're obviously trying to go somewhere, and you have neglected to pose the same questions to those who hold to Sola Ecclesia, which you should do.

What is the correct exegesis?

The one that agrees with what the original author means. Read the article I linked to if you really want to know (which I'm not sure you do).

you're telling me that more than one separate sect believes exactly the same thing

About the Gospel, yes absolutely.
OPC, PCA, SBC, AG, among others believe in the same Gospel. Our unity is in Christ, a spiritual unity, and in love we fulfill Christ's prayer in John 17.

Why are there more than one group of you, why don't you all just be one?

1) One could ask the EOx and RCs the exact same question. So why aren't you asking them as well?
2) Why SHOULD we be?
3) We have minor disagreements on a few matters (I'm talking about those of us who hold to SS, not "Protestants" in general now); there's no reason not to congregate in like-minded fellowships so as to make it easier on everyone to worship and love each other rather than snip at each other often, and to recognise that the other congregations are brothers and sisters. It allows us to hold to our convictions about what Scr says, to learn to bear with others who aren't exactly like us, to express our worship a little differently, etc. But sometimes it's b/c of sin, too. Not always, but sometimes.

How do you determine that this is the true understanding?
How do you decide whether others use it badly or incorrectly, by what understanding/rendering of the scriptures do you make that judgement?


B/c I read the relevant Scr on the question and found the meaning that agrees with what the original author means. Read the article I linked to if you really want to know (which I'm not sure you do).

You just said the Baptists, so why do you pretend here to not have an answer?

B/c it's not just the Babdists who have the true Gospel.

GI: obviously I'm getting no where.

There's a reason for that, my friend.

Please do when you do have the time.

It's been done by men far better at it than I could.



eie,

Pure assertion and in contradiction to Scripture itself.

It looks like you're claming to be able to interp the SCr correctly. Why can't I, then?

that assures that it is the Church that is the pillar of Truth.

Yes, yes, which holds sthg else up.
3rd out-of-context Scr quotation. You're on a roll.

The rest of your comment is just bloviating. Feel free to actually respond to my arguments when you have a chance.

Peace,
Rhology

Rhology said...

GI,

You've asked a dozen questions, now I'd like to ask one.

Please describe your worldview in 5 sentences. Not too long, not too short. Thanks!

Anonymous said...

"he KNOWS which chuch is the "biblical" church because it agrees with how he personally inteprets the bible.

1) Ah, the old canard.

Ah, the TRUTH.

Tomorrow if you had some epiphany, you'd leave the TULIP crew and jump on another wagon or make your own, and you know it. The Bible means whatever you want it to mean and nobody on the planet can tell you otherwise. You dictate its meaning. It submits to you, you do not submit to it. Sola Anthropos rides again.

E i E

Grand Inquisitor of the Great Inquisition said...

EIE states: "Pure assertion and in contradiction to Scripture itself. that assures that it is the Church that is the pillar of Truth."

You know this, how?

"Scripture does not say what you say. In fact, it tells us to hold on to what was written to us and what is spoken."

Can you demonstrate that?

"The very writers we cite as its authors spoke and wrote with authority"


What authority?

"and cited Jesus own giving as that authority as proof"


Now we are getting somewhere, so they claim the authority of Jesus, on what is this based?

"all BEFORE a new testament was written."


This information is contained where?


"The first-century church was not sola scriptura"


Can you demonstrate that fact?

"as there wasn't a scriptura to follow solely"


How do you know that?


"and the latter century churches were not, as evidenced by more documentation than you could read in a month of Sundays."

So, there's just a lot of documentation, but we can't say what documentation?


"So what have we? A “Remnant” church that hid itself utterly for 15 centuries, living under a doctrine of sola scriptura that didn't exist until the 16th century"

Can you demonstrate that sola scriptura was not believed before then?

Grand Inquisitor of the Great Inquisition said...

Rholly says:

Your questions are very tiresome.


I'm sorry you find it so, but I find I get to the bottom of things when I ask questions.


You're obviously trying to go somewhere

Trying to ascertain the authentic Christian faith.

"and you have neglected to pose the same questions to those who hold to Sola Ecclesia, which you should do."

If EIE is one of these, then I have done so.


"What is the correct exegesis?
The one that agrees with what the original author means. Read the article I linked to if you really want to know (which I'm not sure you do)."

"The one that agrees"

I just want a name, what do you call this interpretation, and who believes it? just two simple little names, if it's baptist, say the scripture, by the Baptist interpretation, that's all I ask, for now.



"About the Gospel, yes absolutely.
OPC, PCA, SBC, AG, among others believe in the same Gospel. Our unity is in Christ, a spiritual unity, and in love we fulfill Christ's prayer in John 17."


I've heard it quoted that you all have the same faith, and the same God, why don't you all just be one group who all hold the same doctrine, if you all disagree in one or more areas, how can you claim to all be the same belief, and of the same creed? If one accepts that there is three in one God, and another says otherwise, how can you claim that you all are one and united? How can you say that they are wrong, that they misunderstand, and that you interpret correctly, by what standard do you say that they interpret the bible wrong and you right? Name the standard, it cannot be the Bible, for you both are using it, what standard do you understand the Bible by? What mindset, what mentality, what filter? Just a name, and who has it, is all I require for now.



"Why are there more than one group of you, why don't you all just be one?

1) One could ask the EOx and RCs the exact same question. So why aren't you asking them as well?
2) Why SHOULD we be?
3) We have minor disagreements on a few matters (I'm talking about those of us who hold to SS, not "Protestants" in general now); there's no reason not to congregate in like-minded fellowships so as to make it easier on everyone to worship and love each other rather than snip at each other often, and to recognise that the other congregations are brothers and sisters. It allows us to hold to our convictions about what Scr says, to learn to bear with others who aren't exactly like us, to express our worship a little differently, etc."


This standard interprets itself though, how can you all have individual understandings of it if there is one true understanding, which you claim it itself provides, but here you say that some of you are ok to do things differently than someone else who also holds that same standard? This makes no sense.

B/c it's not just the Babdists who have the true Gospel.

This is confusing, someone has the whole correct pure gospel, it is correct, true, and pure in all areas, that is what I am searching for, the rest of my questions after these are resolved.n

Saint and Sinner said...

"Anonymous said...
E i E

I think he wants something like this:

Alexander of Alexandria [SAINT]
- Epistles on the Arian Heresy and the Deposition of Arius

Alexander of Lycopolis
- Of the Manicheans..."

Which all contradict each other and themselves as has been proven over and over again. Two completely differing teachings cannot both be apostolic. So, again, how could you ever know what was taught by the apostles unless it was written by their own pen?

e i e said...

"The rest of your comment is just bloviating. Feel free to actually respond to my arguments when you have a chance."

Ahh, the variation of calling what you cannot address, "sophistry."

Lame, even for you.

The first-century church was not sola scriptura--as there wasn't a scriptura to follow solely--and the latter century churches were not. Since you deny doctrinal development, you have a "Remnant" that is hidden for 1500 years that didn't produce one (that is not a single solitary--nadda--nunk-ZERO--the null set, as in none whatsoever--documents that describe your doctrines that you say ALL MUST have existed all that time. Where was your Remnant for 1500 years, Rholly? Where's the 2nd-century Westminster Confession? If the solas are vital to Christianity and the apostates were off ignoring them, why no preaching from the "Remnant" on them them for 1500 years?

E i E

Anonymous said...

"Which all contradict each other and themselves as has been proven over and over again. Two completely differing teachings cannot both be apostolic."

So Paul and Peter could not both have been apostolic, eh?

Good one. Try again.

Nobody said they were inspired.

Grand Inquisitor of the Great Inquisition said...

Rholly Asks: You've asked a dozen questions, now I'd like to ask one.

Please describe your worldview in 5 sentences. Not too long, not too short. Thanks!


I will say this:

I am trying ascertain who has the true Christian faith, if I consider becoming Christian, I'd like to know which one to consider. I want to make sure that it is original, and authentic. I used to be Southern Baptist, a loong time ago, when I was little. The pastor can't answer me anything now, but says to try back another time, or asking me all sort of questions about irrelevant junk, so, if I join Christianity, as you define it, I would like to find out if it is really the real thing, so, I ask questions, sometime, I'll get down to the bottome of all of this. I will deal with you article in due time, but now am still working with EIE's citations.

e i e said...

"This is confusing, someone has the whole correct pure gospel, it is correct, true, and pure in all areas, that is what I am searching for, the rest of my questions after these are resolved"

GI

We look through a glass, dimly. What you want cannot be provided in this life. If you want God to stop by and shake your hand, I pray that He does--but I don't have the means to set it up for you.

Christianity requires faith and reason. I don't think it is possible to practice it without both. This answer is insufficient for the pure empiricist and it is less than ideal for even the run-of-the-mill rationalist. But then, one does not invent mathematics so much as discover it: one does not discover music so much as experience it, one does not so much experience art as create it ex nihilo. There are aspects of human existence that seem to operate on rules that we perceive yet we did not create so much as capitalize on them. So it is, I believe, with moral law--and that ultimately, though the leaps from a moral law to a moral law giver to that giver being a god to that god being The God of Christianity are daunting, they are the only leaps I find rational. To you this discussion might look like people getting steamed up over who has the better imaginary friend. If this is so, then I suggest that your questions might not be up to speed with your true understanding--as you don't want to know what makes each party sure he is correct so mach as confirm to yourself that both are off base.

E i E

e i e said...

"I am trying ascertain who has the true Christian faith, if I consider becoming Christian"

May I suggest that you first evaluate theism in general, monotheism in particular and Christianity in detail. Even then, as I said before, you cannot make such a journey without faith as well as reason. In what might seem like a paradox (but isn't) you might need to come to a place where an faith is the rational conclusion of your seeking.

I'm sure all of us will pray for you to receive any and all blessings and gudance that God wills to give you.

E i E

e i e said...

One final thing, GI:

Although I argue quite hotly with Rholly and Carrie and others, I personally deem that you would be infinately better foff in their company and practicing and believing their brand of Christianity than you would be without God. Whatever you do, do NOT put off turning to Christ if you are drawn to Him, because you want to find who has "the pure gospel" first. I'd much prefer banging my head against the wall trying to later convince you of my own Christianity than see you walk the lonley road into that dearth of light that is the universe without Him.

E i E

Grand Inquisitor of the Great Inquisition said...

"We look through a glass, dimly. What you want cannot be provided in this life."

So you're telling me that you cannot say that your creed is the true faith delivered by God?

That is it, that is what I am ascertaining, how can anyone commenting here say for certain that they are right, and someone else is wrong, unldess they have something to which they can compare those claims with, something that they know for sure is correct, and can say and demonstrate that for certain. Are you telling me that there is no doctrine delivered by Jesus, that He left no doctrine behind? Are you telling me that religious truth is not objective, but subjective to the understanding of the individual? If that is so, then there is no reason for the existence of Christianity.

"Christianity requires faith and reason."

Indeed, I am appealing to reason, can it be shown that your creed is the one delivered by God, if there is one, it is totally true, and without blemish, but if not, then we all waste our time, for we could all be wrong.


"I don't think it is possible to practice it without both. This answer is insufficient for the pure empiricist and it is less than ideal for even the run-of-the-mill rationalist. But then, one does not invent mathematics so much as discover it: one does not discover music so much as experience it, one does not so much experience art as create it ex nihilo. There are aspects of human existence that seem to operate on rules that we perceive yet we did not create so much as capitalize on them. So it is, I believe, with moral law--and that ultimately, though the leaps from a moral law to a moral law giver to that giver being a god to that god being The God of Christianity are daunting, they are the only leaps I find rational."


Very well said, however, are you sure that your creed is the one delivered by the God of Christianity?

If so, can you demonstrate that for me?


"To you this discussion might look like people getting steamed up over who has the better imaginary friend. If this is so, then I suggest that your questions might not be up to speed with your true understanding--as you don't want to know what makes each party sure he is correct so mach as confirm to yourself that both are off base."

If your creed is true, can you show not only myself, but also to expound this to these critics who disbelieve you, that what you believe in indeed what Jesus handed to the Apostles, and that what you believe is the true faith of Jesus Christ. Demonstrate that fact, it should not be all that hard, just to show consistency.

e i e said...

"So you're telling me that you cannot say that your creed is the true faith delivered by God?"

I'm telling you that you will have to ascertain that. My testimony is only as good as your faith in it.

E i E

e i e said...

"Very well said, however, are you sure that your creed is the one delivered by the God of Christianity?"

I am, but I cannot confer this confidence to you. There is only one source of this confidence in the universe, and I am not He. You do not need to seek out me. you need to seek out Him. At the same time, He says, "Behold, I stand at the door and knock." Which is odd to me, since one harkens to a knock more than beholds it... but I digress. You are a man of reason and as such it is your response to whatever call you have that matters.

E i E

Grand Inquisitor of the Great Inquisition said...

EIE,

God is real, no doubt, there are too many things that testify to this fact, one is not convinced of something if one or two things agree with it, he is convinced when all things agree with it, and the whole world shouts God, and his beauty, and many things we find that are there that attest to the beauty and order of God, even the trees and even the atheist walking down the street, with his very being shouts the existence of God, by his very ability to speak he testifies His existence.

Sin is real, walk onto the street and it stares you in the face. We know that sin and God are real, if there is sin it must originate from something, thus there is a devil, and since both sin and goodness cannot result from the same source, there are two, a satan and a devil, just as Christianity says.

Other religions come out with wierd things like muslims are just too messed up and against nature, and all pagans are doing things so against nature that it is mind-boggling that they could be doing anything right, for what they do harms others, and causes despair.

Agnostics say God is real, but we cannot know him, would be to say our earthly father is real, but we cannot know him, is stupidity.

Something has to be able to make sense of it all, to explain sin and God perfectly, Christianity does, thus Christianity offers true logic and beauty and adds purpose to all things, while allowing men to do anything they want via free will, but testifies that though we can do anything does not make it true, just as we can work a math problem any way we want, but that does not mean that it is correct.

Thesis: Christianity is true, but which Christianity, by whose definition, which one has the order and unity and definity that all temporal things share?

So, local protestant says must be baptised, one accross street says otherwise, something has to be done, a conclusion must be reached, so, which one has the truth as God revealed it? This I ask all of you, but in a way that will make sense, and place things in order, if the Bible is right, that's good, but how do we know what it means in one or more areas, just saying I have the spirit is not enough, all Christians say that, but they all disagree with one another on vitually all issues. There must be a unity and order, for God is one, though in three persons, he also has laid down an order for all things, and so it must have been with the faith that He gave His followers, it must have been one, and had a unity and must have made sense, it must be just as God it, just and merciful, true and one.
So, who of you claims that you have the truth that God gave the disciples, and can you demonstrate that fact?

e i e said...

"Indeed, I am appealing to reason, can it be shown that your creed is the one delivered by God, if there is one, it is totally true, and without blemish, but if not, then we all waste our time, for we could all be wrong."

Sir, we could all be living in "the matrix" and are only one red pill away from a reality that we would all find a living hell--but this is not really about whether or not we could all be wrong. You live as you must whether your physical life is real or an illusion. In the end you choose to treat it as real and you go about feeding yourself and sustaining your life, which is good for you as the results of not doing so would (I deem) result in your physical death. I deem the physical life is a real life and by extention that the physical world is a real world.

Similarly, I advise anyone who even suspects that a spiritual life exists (and by extention a spiritual world), that they then consider whether there are ways one must react to it in order to avoid one's spiritual death.

Thus I suggested you look toward your spiritual understanding and seek God Himself, not my opinions of Him. In short: pray. The worst that could happen is nothing.


E i E

e i e said...

"So, who of you claims that you have the truth that God gave the disciples, and can you demonstrate that fact?"

You've obviously seen enough of these conversations to know how each party would answer that question. I do not deem it is the important thing for you to consider right now. If you are drawn to Christ, run to Him! If not, do not play at it, as at best it occupies me addressing you vainly and at worst puts you at risk if there is any truth to Christianity.

I'll not address "who is right" anymore in this thread. I've no intention of "winning" an argument at the cost of endangering a soul.

Enough is Enough
(I'm outta here.)

Grand Inquisitor of the Great Inquisition said...

EIE,

Christ left a doctrine, your creed claims that it is that doctrine, I want one thing, show me that your doctrine has always existed from then till now, I concede that your Fathers were the Early Christians, now my question is, do you believe as them?

As also, Rhology, do you believe as these early Christians?

It makes no sense that Christianity was not something that could be seen all throughtout Christianity, otherwise, who could know to approach it, who could be Christian, who knew of its existence, this idea that they existed but we don't know who they were or what they believed simply does not tick. He told His apostles to preach to the whole world, so obviously, if they were some little remnant, we should still at least know their names, they would be contained somewhere. The Bible, one might say, but how do we know that the Bible is the Word of God delivered to His apostles? How do we know that one was not left out, or that it contains one that is not biblical? This is where the testimony of the early Christians assures us by being a witness to what the early Christians believed. Yes, we must have faith in the truth, one cannot know the answer to an equation unless he believe it, knowing something and realizing it are two things, one must believe a fact when presented to him, but also, if one believes error, his belief does not make it true. Thus, we must believe what is right, even in the area of religion, we must not say well this is this and we believe this because it is contained here; what is here, and who put it there, are we sure?
Well, what if someone else reads it this way, or that way, how are we to understand it, like john 3:5 for example, it has so many interpretations, but who reads it the way that God meant for it to be understood? Who has the authority to say for sure anything is true in Christianity if we are all left to our own conscience? we could end up in believeing some way that the Creator did not intend, like Rhology said we must see what the author said, but what of the way we understand what the author said, it could be misunderstood, and who could say for certain, on what authority does one say that the author meant this or that, who can say? The Methodist tells me one thing, the Pentecostal another, the Baptist another, someone must have it the way that Christ laid it down, that is what I ask, who here knows and can say that they have it as it was revealed? EIE says the early Christians, it might be, but what else, can I say just some remnant, who I don't know what they believe? We can't just say this is the original real thing, but we can't show how that is so. Too much uncertainty there to risk an eternity over.

Rhology said...

GI,

OK, thank you for answering my question so I can at least know where you're coming from.
You're wondering WHICH branch of Christianity is the true one. This is a fairly big question, as I'm sure you realise. I'll try to break it down.
Let's classify the respective branches by the question of how one is saved from his sin.

Eie and David W represent the RC branch. Their answer to the question of how the guilty sinner is brought into a right relationship with God is that one must have faith AND cooperate with the grace of God as transfered thru the sacraments of the Church.

The biblical answer (and the one that I represent) is that salvation is by God's grace ALONE through faith ALONE. Why do I believe this?
B/c the Bible teaches it in Ephesians 2:8-10.

8For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Note how it's NOT the result of works, which is what the EO and RC would say, that salvation is at least PARTLY due to works.
Note also how the same good works that God has prepared for us to do are the same works that are NOT the cause of our salvation.

That alone is enough to call out the RC and EO systems as false.

Hopefully that helps.

Peace,
Rhology

Grand Inquisitor said...

Rhol,

my first inquiry:

"Citation, historical documentation needs be provided by both RC's and Protestants here if advancement is to be made in this area. Simply because:
1. RC's claim that the Church is the insitution founded by Christ, and thus holds the fullness of the truth, by their interpretation of the Bible, which even according to Protestants they are entitled to."


Agreed?


2. Protestants claim otherwise, they say that the Church has erred, and has failed/no longer keeps pure gospel, but fails to demonstrate the apostolicity and historicity of their claim, thus, if they are right, the "pure" gospel, which is of yet undefined;

Correction, now you have defined what you believe to be the pure gospel, justification via faith alone. Am I right thus far?



was lost about the death of Justin Martyr and was not rediscovered for about 1400 years, which is basically the claim that the Church failed, and that the gates of Hell prevailed against it, for a time, at least.


At least what I have been able to get from what I've so far read.


Protestants claim that there was always a remnant, and that even now there is such a faction that holds this "pure" gospel, again completely undefined, and absolutely unsubstantiated.

Main Inquiry:

What sect/denomination holds the fullness of the pure gospel as delivered by Jesus Christ?


"Quite simply, then, there is needed a historical record and presence of what ever this pure gospel group was, who were they, what did they believe, and what are the witnesses who say these things, and by what standard are they right, and the RC's wrong, and by what standard are we to know what is the true interpretation of that standard, and, also, how can we be sure of this standard, where did it come from, and where is the evidence?"

Thesis:

This denomination needs to be able to demonstrate their apostolicity by showing that their beliefs are handed down from the time of the Apostles, meaning they need to show continuity from the early Church.

These questions are begging an answer, does anyone care satisfy them?

Rhology said...

Hi GI,

1) Agreed.

2) That is the MECHANISM of salvation, though whether it is a necessary aspect of a saving faith is a slightly different question.

3) Not necessarily agreed - that's what all that talk about a remnant is about.

What sect/denomination holds the fullness of the pure gospel as delivered by Jesus Christ?

Quite a few.
Those that hold to Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide do. SS is not an aspect of a saving faith, but the churches that hold to SS and SF both have the pure Gospel.

This denomination needs to be able to demonstrate their apostolicity by showing that their beliefs are handed down from the time of the Apostles, meaning they need to show continuity from the early Church.

This thesis is incorrect. Such sect would need simply to be able to establish its continuity with the PROCLAMATION of the apostles, which is the Scripture. And we can do that.

Peace,
Rhology

PS - thanks for simplifying it for me; I was losing track of stuff.

Grand Inquisitor said...

Rhol said: "Agreed."

Good.

"What sect/denomination holds the fullness of the pure gospel as delivered by Jesus Christ?"

Which one is the one preached by the Apostles? This is why I ask for a continuity, anyone can pick up a Bible and say that their opinion is biblical, cite some passages to substantiate it and form a sect, but that does not make it true.

Quite a few.
Those that hold to Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide do.


Claims don't make something true, it's why I ask "why?" or in another phraseology "can you demonstrate that?"


SS is not an aspect of a saving faith, but the churches that hold to SS and SF both have the pure Gospel.

Thank you for your opinion, but might I ask, why do you think that is so?

Such sect would need simply to be able to establish its continuity with the PROCLAMATION of the apostles, which is the Scripture. And we can do that.


As stated above, anybody can do that, I could promote just about anything, citing scripture to back me up, but that won't mean that I'm right. How to get past this? Quite simply this, Jesus said that He and His faithful would remain until the end of time, and for people to be saved, they have to be taught this faith, in order to believe, which means that it has to be something approachable, and that such a thing existed from the time of the apostles, and continued to exist all throughout history, and even until now, in keeping with the gospel, this is one way that we can know that what we understand of the scriptures is true and is the way the Apostles understood and preached it = the need for a continuity and consistency in doctrine of faith, as in the post above "determining truth".


Peace,
Rhology


Thank you.

PS - thanks for simplifying it for me; I was losing track of stuff.


You're welcome,

Grand Inquisitor.

Rhology said...

Which one is the one preached by the Apostles?

The biblical one, since the Scr is the apostolic deposit.

anyone can pick up a Bible and say that their opinion is biblical, cite some passages to substantiate it and form a sect, but that does not make it true.

Just like anyone can pick up tradition and do the same.
Don't fall into the trap of thinking the Bible is not sufficiently clear to make its meaning known.
Read it in its context, using proper hermeneutics; the truth is there to be found, and Jesus held men accountable for correct or incorrect position on the Scr.

Claims don't make something true, it's why I ask "why?" or in another phraseology "can you demonstrate that?"

Yes I know, but you didn't ask me to demonstrate it. You asked WHICH ONES. I answered.
I recently had a long conversation on the topic that I'd commend to you. You can see which side came out on the side of truth.

which means that it has to be something approachable

Which it was, in the Scr and in the Holy Spirit.

that such a thing existed from the time of the apostle

Which it did, in the Scr and in the Holy Spirit.

in keeping with the gospel,

There you go. The institutional church of the medieval times had in large part lost the Gospel. Without the Gospel, you don't have... the Gospel. Right?

Peace,
Rhology

Anonymous said...

"There you go. The institutional church of the medieval times had in large part lost the Gospel."

Then who had it?

Rhology said...

The Scripture expressed it.
And there may or may not have been a remnant of true believers at that time, living as part of the institutional church but who had either not been taught strongly by the church or had sloughed it off.

Think of OT Israel and also Athanasius' time for a relevant precursor to this time period. There is plenty of precedent.

Anonymous said...

"And there may or may not have been a remnant of true believers at that time, living as part of the institutional church but who had either not been taught strongly by the church or had sloughed it off"

Why don't you know whether or not there was a "remnant of true believers?"

Rhology said...

B/c I'm ignorant.
B/c they didn't necessarily leave any record of which I'm aware.
But I don't have alot of info about it, so I'm not the best person to consult.