Thursday, September 16, 2010

To Be Deep in History - excellent article by Keith Mathison

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/be-deep-history/

Keith Mathison, at Ligonier Ministries, and in the September 2010 issue of Tabletalk, has an excellent article on John Henry Newman's claim to be deep in history . . . and he compares Newman's take with another Anglican who converted to Rome in the 19th Century, Henry Edward Manning.

Here is an excerpt at the end. Excellent analysis of this shibboleth that is deceiving modern day evangelicals left and right.

"Cardinal Newman recognized the obvious difference between the current Roman Church and the early church. He was too deep in history not to see it. He had to develop his famous idea of doctrinal development to explain it. He argued that all the later Roman doctrines and practices were “hidden” in the church from the beginning. They were made explicit over time under the guidance of the Spirit. But the problem that many Roman Catholics fail to see is that there is a difference between development and contradiction. It is one thing to use different language to teach something the church has always taught (e.g., the “Trinity”). It is another thing altogether to begin teaching something that the church always denied (e.g., papal supremacy or infallibility). Those doctrines in particular were built on multitudes of forgeries.

Cardinal Manning solved the problem by treating any appeal to history as treason. He called for blind faith in the papacy and magisterium. Such might have been possible had the fruits of the papacy over 1,500 years not consistently been the precise opposite of the fruit of the Spirit (Matt. 7:16).

Cardinal Newman said that to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant. The truth is that to be deep in real history, as opposed to Rome’s whitewashed, revisionist, and often forged history, is to cease to be a Roman Catholic."

Keith Mathison

From Ligonier Ministries and R.C. Sproul. © Tabletalk magazine. Website: www.ligonier.org/tabletalk. Email: tabletalk@ligonier.org. Toll free: 1-800-435-4343.

108 comments:

Ikonophile said...

"To be deep in history, is to cease to be a Western Christian, either Protestant or Catholic."

-Myself-

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

"The truth is that to be deep in real history, as opposed to Rome’s whitewashed, revisionist, and often forged history, is to cease to be a Roman Catholic."

BLAM!!

Right. Between. The. Eyes.

Blogahon said...

Unfortunately for Mr. Mathison, the blessed John Henry Newman was not the first to posit doctrine of the development of doctrine.

St. Vincent Lerins wrote on it extensively in the fifth century. Other examples from Augustine to Aquinas are outlined here.

Lastly, it is puzzling to always see Protestants kicking the development of doctrine, as if their particular doctrines are explicitly and fully present from the very earliest Christian testimony...

Tim Enloe said...

The remedy to Newman is, of course, to REALLY get deep in history by studying history in detail, from the primary sources, rather than mainly from secondary textbooks. Textbooks should be used only to gain a sense of the "big picture;" never as if they are themselves primary sources.

These days, so much has been translated from the classical languages that the only reasonable excuse for us Protestants NOT to study history in detail is lack of funds to purchase the primary source books.

The other main principle is to avoid impatience when studying history. Do not study the history so you can win some dumb argument against a convert on a blog. Study the history because it is the story of what Christ has been doing these past 2,000 years (yes, even through His enemies), not because some Roman Catholic somewhere is saying some outrageous thing about "being deep in history."

natamllc said...

Sean

First: Lastly, it is puzzling to always see Protestants kicking the development of doctrine, as if their particular doctrines are explicitly and fully present from the very earliest Christian testimony...

Can you cite some examples of anyone of us of the True Reformation "kicking the development of True Doctrine?"

What it seems to me is your complaint is accurate when you say we are kicking against your historical development of RCC doctrines.

Is that so bad? Do we not have a right to "love" our neighbors?

When you use the word "unfortunately" a bell rings true within me that quite possibly there is something being overlooked, or else why use the word?

Do you now claim him as treating the historical truths of History falsely?

Blogahon said...

Tim,

Do you think its possible that a believer can "get deep in history by studying history in detail, from the primary sources" and as a result be drawn to the Catholic Church?

Blogahon said...

Nata.

When I say, "kicking the development of doctrine?" what I referring to is a tendency to look skeptically at the Catholic Church when it speaks of development while at the same time relying on development in one's own right.

For example, Dr. Mathison’s article that is cited here, "Oh look, Cardinal Newman had to 'posit' this idea of development because he couldn't align various Catholic doctrines."

Meanwhile all 'truly Reformed' people acknowledge development for their doctrines and even shared doctrines (the NT canon, the doctrine of the Trinity.)

Nata, take a look at the link I provided previously and note that Augustine, Origen and other fathers speak of development of doctrine even in their time. So, yes, it is unfortunate that Mr. Mathison is presenting the notion that the Blessed John Henry Newman 'posited' something new when it has always been there. Is is 'unfortunate' because it is an untrue assertion and potentially misleading.

Ree said...

Blogahon,

It's not the idea of development that Protestants take issue with, but with Newman's specific notion of development. His view of development certainly was something new.

Tim Enloe said...

Blogahon,

The short answer is an "unqualified yes," because you asked about what is "possible," and all kinds of things are "possible." Since I am not the sort of Protestant who thinks it wise to try to peer into the hearts of others when I often do not even understand my own, I must say that yes, it is "possible" for real Christians to become persuaded of the case for Roman Catholicism. Indeed, as far as the term "real Christians" goes, some of our best Reformed theologians (i.e., Berkhof, Hodge) are unwilling to stipulate precisely what doctrines belong to the intellectual aspect of saving faith precisely because they realize that (1) the Bible itself doesn't spell out some universal list, and (2) people are vastly different in their abilities and life circumstances, and this greatly affects the quality, comprehension, and articulation of their faith.

There are Protestants who couldn't explain the Definition of Chalcedon to save their lives, but few would question their salvation based merely on their poor ability to articulate "sound doctrine." Mutatis mutandis, there are Catholics who claim to believe all the doctrines that the Reformation says are repugnant to the Gospel, yet whose lives and speech are exceedingly "evangelical" in tone, and few would question their salvation based merely on their poor ability to articulate "sound doctrine." The wisest policy in these discussions is to avoid trying to see the hearts of others and instead focus on properly understanding their words and attempting to persuade them of where they are wrong.

That's the short answer to your question. The long answer is a "qualified yes," because people are complicated and the world is complicated, and the quality of becoming persuaded by a case for this or that thing varies dramatically from person to person.
I do not myself find the case for Roman Catholicism to be persuasive for a variety of biblical, historical, philosophical, and practical reasons. Nevertheless, while I am persuaded of classical Protestantism, I readily recognize that that persuasion has a lot to do with the kind of person I am, and since others are not like me, they experience no necessary, obvious pressure of "Truth" toward the views of which I myself am persuaded.

As a rational human being involved in the pursuit of wisdom, my duty is, as Philo or Plato put it, "Be kind, for everyone you meet is undergoing an even harder battle than you are." Hard advice, that, and advice that most people on both sides find difficult to assimilate. It is no secret that I have had a great deal of trouble assimilating the advice myself. It's a constant struggle, and one that, like all things in the Christian religion, can only be mastered by the long, hard exercise of the life of sanctification, which, like justification, is by faith from first to last.

natamllc said...

When I read this, referring to Cardinal Newman:

He believed that if one compared the teaching and practice of both Protestantism and Rome to the teaching and practice of the early church, one would be forced to conclude that Rome was the true heir of the early church.


Manning and Burghardt are simply being consistent with belief in the infallibility of Rome and of the pope. If the church is infallible, appeals to history, tradition, and Scripture are superfluous. What the church teaches now must be what the church has always taught, regardless of what the actual evidence from Scripture and/or tradition might say.

I see a parallel here with the consistency of those who held to the Talmudic teachings in the days when Jesus was confronting their false representations of Truth and their assertion of undeniable truth telling, "do not question our authority or else" and those words above about Manning, Burghardt and also Newman, simply being consistent to their confession of faith in the way of Rome.

I conflate his point, (Mathison), with Jesus' teaching the authorities of His day to review Biblical "History" correctly, not anachronistically. From Our Lord's point of view, reviewing True History seems only to be a "secondary" source when confirming the Truth Present. I wonder if it is? We are taught that we are to "love" our neighbor as we ourself second only to "loving" God with all of our heart, soul, mind and strength?


Jesus exhorted "the" reason why they were to examined True History, here:

Joh 5:37 And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness about me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen,
Joh 5:38 and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe the one whom he has sent.
Joh 5:39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me,
Joh 5:40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.
Joh 5:41 I do not receive glory from people.
Joh 5:42 But I know that you do not have the love of God within you.
Joh 5:43 I have come in my Father's name, and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him.
Joh 5:44 How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?
Joh 5:45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope.
Joh 5:46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me.
Joh 5:47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?"


Apparently the Apostle Paul also saw that the two are part of one event?

Act 20:32 And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.

That being the "Truth", it makes sense Mathison's article and why Rome is not inclined that her members know the Historical Truth of true writings of History!

God is True.

The Devil is a liar.

Of Whose Truth are you?

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

"Tim,

Do you think its possible that a believer can "get deep in history by studying history in detail, from the primary sources" and as a result be drawn to the Catholic Church?"


Let's now turn the question around.

Blogahon,

Do you think its possible that a believer can "get deep in history by studying history in detail, from the primary sources" and as a result be drawn to Christ and to worship Him in a Protestant church?

Blogahon said...

Do you think its possible that a believer can "get deep in history by studying history in detail, from the primary sources" and as a result be drawn to Christ and to worship Him in a Protestant church?

Sure, its possible. It is hard for me to understand how that would happen, however, because my experience was the exact opposite.

The irony is that, like Tim, I would strongly encourage any Christian to get deep in history and to read the primary source material (fathers, councils etc).

natamllc said...

Sean,

when you respond: what I referring to is a tendency to look skeptically at the Catholic Church when it speaks of development while at the same time relying on development in one's own right. you are simply agreeing with Scripture! Great!

Are we not taught to beware of all things given as Truth just as the Apostle exhorts, here:

1Th 5:14 And we urge you, brothers, admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all.
1Th 5:15 See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to everyone.
1Th 5:16 Rejoice always,
1Th 5:17 pray without ceasing,
1Th 5:18 give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.
1Th 5:19 Do not quench the Spirit.
1Th 5:20 Do not despise prophecies,
1Th 5:21 but test everything; hold fast what is good.
1Th 5:22 Abstain from every form of evil.
1Th 5:23 Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1Th 5:24 He who calls you is faithful; he will surely do it.


Being of a critical eye, or skeptical as you say, seemed to be what it was all about in past generations, as is should be today, seeing we are also fighting principalities and powers of spiritual wickedness coming out of men, just as Paul taught it in his day, here:

Act 20:28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.
Act 20:29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;
Act 20:30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.
Act 20:31 Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish everyone with tears.


Or, how about Peter's doctrine, here:

1Pe 5:8 Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.
1Pe 5:9 Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world.


The one thing I believe is agreeable is the devils are hard at work today as yesterday and if so then and now, so they will be hard at work tomorrow! :)

Blogahon said...

nata.

The passage you cite could just as easily be construed in such a way as to urge skepticism against the claims of your pastors.

When you quote: Act 20:28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.
Act 20:29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;
Act 20:30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.
Act 20:31 Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish everyone with tears.


You are 'begging the question' that this admonishment is against the Catholic teachers.

natamllc said...

TUAD

"BLAM"

hmmmmm, have you gone mad?

I do remember the report from the gun when the slaughter man shot the calf we were going to eat!

Sadly, his first "BANG" did not get right between the eyes!

That boy just stood there dazed like a cow observing a new gate!

The second report did it's intent as the young boy dropped!

Are you conflating BLAM with BANG BANG, my dear ah, should I say, friend?

Blogahon said...

I think of all of us, Nata would be the most fun to hang out with...Nata, if I am ever in your neck of the woods we should have a meal.

Blogahon said...

John is kind of quiet today but I think I found out what he must be doing.

The Popemobile then joined the annual St Ninian's Day parade where, despite tight security, police estimated that about 125,000people turned out to cheer him on.

Presbyterians, secularists, and other groups in Edinburgh had planned to protest against Vatican policies on birth control, gay rights and abortion, although police did not report any large demonstrations.


Here.

natamllc said...

Sean,

no, it is not.

It is a "historical" record the Church general should rely upon just as your friend, St. Vincent of the Fifth Century wrote his adherences:

(2) Here, it may be, someone will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and is in itself abundantly sufficient, what need is there to join to it the interpretation of the Church? The answer is that because of the very depth of Scripture all men do not place one identical interpretation upon it. The statements of the same writer are explained by different men in different ways, so much so that it seems almost possible to extract from it as many opinions as there are men. Novatian expounds in one way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another, Arius, Eunomius and Macedonius in another, Photinus, Apollinaris and Priscillian in another, Jovinian, Pelagius and Caelestius in another, and latterly Nestorius in another. Therefore, because of the intricacies of error, which is so multiform, there is great need for the laying down of a rule for the exposition of Prophets and Apostles in accordance with the standard of the interpretation of the Church Catholic.

Which of those men St. Vincent writes about would you stay away from adhering to and practice?

Might it be that he had in mind the Apostle's admonitions also? And might it be that he had a sense that the historical writing of men are in question?

Why would that implication be far afield of the Truth or beg the question?

Let me ask you, are you willing to let Scripture be the final authority for all following authorities adhered to? I don't suppose you would?

Isn't it this that we are all about in here?

There is a reason we read these Words:

Heb 9:10 but deal only with food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation.

History does have a way of repeating herself when she misguides and misleads her followers as we believe that the first Protestant reformers' writings attest after all these years!

Sean, let's face it, you have your back up against the wall in here.

The matter at hand is so gravid with falsehoods and truth, no wonder we read Mathison's final words:

Cardinal Newman said that to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant. The truth is that to be deep in real history, as opposed to Rome’s whitewashed, revisionist, and often forged history, is to cease to be a Roman Catholic.

And, you of course, would rather reduce the last two to be one word, "Reformed"

Blogahon said...

Nata.

Which of those men St. Vincent writes about would you stay away from adhering to and practice?

All of them. In fact if St. Vincent de Lerins were alive several centuries later he would instead have said:

Novatian expounds in one way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another, Arius, Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, Eunomius and Macedonius in another, Photinus, Apollinaris and Priscillian in another, Jovinian, Pelagius and Caelestius in another, and latterly Nestorius in another. Therefore, because of the intricacies of error, which is so multiform, there is great need for the laying down of a rule for the exposition of Prophets and Apostles in accordance with the standard of the interpretation of the Church Catholic.


All heretics appeal to scripture to their own destruction.

Let me ask you, are you willing to let Scripture be the final authority for all following authorities adhered to? I don't suppose you would?

You are not really asking if I would let scripture be the final authority. You are asking if I would let myself be the final authority and the answer is 'no.'

Sean, let's face it, you have your back up against the wall in here.

If you say so.

Blogahon said...

nata.

Can you put the following in a Reformed early church conception context?

“Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, in harmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord's Scriptures."

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5,20:2 (A.D. 180).

"Now the cause, in all the points previously enumerated, of the false opinions, and of the impious statements or ignorant assertions about God, appears to be nothing else than the not understanding the Scripture according to its spiritual meaning, but the interpretation of it agreeably to the mere letter. And therefore, to those who believe that the sacred books are not the compositions of men, but that they were composed by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, agreeably to the will of the Father of all things through Jesus Christ, and that they have come down to us, we must point out the ways (of interpreting them) which appear (correct) to us, who cling to the standard of the heavenly Church of Jesus Christ according to the succession of the apostles."

Origen, First Principles, 4,1:9 (A.D. 230).

"The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, 'He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathereth not with me scattereth.'"

Cyprian, Unity of the Church, 6 (A.D. 256).

"But those reasons which I have here given, I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, or from the nature itself of numbers and of similitudes. No sober person will decide against reason, no Christian against the Scriptures, no peaceable person against the church."

Augustine, On the Trinity, 4,6:10 (A.D. 416).

You see, you tell me that I should let scripture alone be my authority, which really means that I alone am the authority but this is not what he fathers teach.

natamllc said...

Sean,

anachronism at its finest there!

Novatian expounds in one way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another, Arius, Calvin, Luther, Zwingli,

And you don't believe your back is up against the "wall" in here?


Hmmmmmmm, I want a second that we put John Bugay on trial bringing charges against him for erecting a cardboard wall blog just slightly thicker than rice paper!

It's true Sean, you would charge those earliest Protestors with wanting to put another interpretation of understanding into Rome's way!

I can only attest, Sean, that once I was blind and now I see! Ironically, however, seeing Truth just goes to show me how little I do see! But I am of good comfort! Eternal Life is far longer than my temporal existence of being! History, though True, is short lived!!

I did nothing to see. It was done to me. I will do nothing now to help you see other than take your proverbial right hand, and unlike your history reflects, not with force, but with gentleness and Scripture and let you feel the Book in braille!

I was blind and now I see!!

Constantine said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ken said...

Tim wrote:
"These days, so much has been translated from the classical languages that the only reasonable excuse for us Protestants NOT to study history in detail is lack of funds to purchase the primary source books. "

True, good point, Tim!

but even a lot of Augustine and Origen has still not been translated into English - The English translation body of Migne's Greek Patrology and Latin Patrology is something like only 25 % of the total work! That is what some have said, if I recall correctly. Roger Pearce of the Tertullian Project

http://www.tertullian.org/

told me something like this in an email. (I could be wrong on the percentage; so don't hold me to it; but it was surprising to me after all these centuries.


Tim wrote:
"The other main principle is to avoid impatience when studying history."

Yes, absolutely; good word of wisdom and exhortation there for sure!

Thanks Tim.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

"The truth is that to be deep in real history, as opposed to Rome’s whitewashed, revisionist, and often forged history, is to cease to be a Roman Catholic."

BLAM!!

Right. Between. The. Eyes.

(Natamllc) "Are you conflating BLAM with BANG BANG, my dear ah, should I say, friend?"

Must be a new kind of mutant zombie, we're dealing with here. Used to be, one well-placed head shot between the eyes was all that was needed.

But now with these bellicose, flesh-eating, blood-drinking, Greco-Roman wrestling, highly jaded, hoofer, doozy of a blowhard maniac zombies coming after you with their relentless lurch, not even multiple head shots repeated again and again from multiple angles are enough to drop them. When these zombies are called to communion, just run away. Far away.

Blogahon said...

Nata.

I am not following your train of thought.

Do you even know who Arius, Donatus etc were?

St. Vincent's point is not that they were defending the faith.

If you need to side with Arius to make your point than I rest my case.

Constantine, your ad hom against Dave Armonstrong notwithstanding, I note that you merely make assertions about St. Vincent de Lerins and do not interact where he speaks of development in explicit terms.

natamllc said...

TUAD

with their relentless lurch,

I know this is afar afield but I have a prejudice!

I lurch as well so would you do me a favor? Would you run like the dickens and get me some help? I haven't known you to be one who is prone to lurch?

natamllc said...

Sean, you asked:

Do you even know who Arius, Donatus etc were?

Yes.

What is that, Sean? Do you want to incite something with me?

If you need to side with Arius to make your point than I rest my case.

I did say I now see people as trees to borrow from the blind man's response to Jesus, but, really, when have I ever put over that I side with Arius' thoughts?

I may have to clarify some comments? Would you cite which ones I need clarify?

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

"Would you run like the dickens and get me some help?"

Sorry. No can do. When these flesh-eating, blood-drinking zombies are called to communion and you can't get away from their relentless lurch, just fuggedaboutit!

Goodnight Gracie, you dead. Brain-dead just like them. We'll light Roman candles for you in memoriam.

Tim Enloe said...

Ken, yeah, you're right about the patristic corpus. A good argument for more Protestants learning Latin and Greek so that we can make that stuff accessible in English!

I was thinking primarily of Medieval materials, which is where my own historical work tends to focus. There is so much of that available in translation, particularly on topics relevant to the "development of doctrine" of the papacy, that it isn't funny. Alas, a lot of it is very expensive, and it's best for one to live near a good, large university library to gain access to such materials.

Still, it is available, and much of it is just like the patristic material in that it greatly strengthens the Protestant case and greatly weakens the pop-apologetics arguments that Reformation distinctives are sheer novelties. Particularly regarding the papacy, the Medieval evidence is like a tsunami against the silly notion that papalism was "always" believed by all "orthodox catholics" prior to the Reformation. Just try getting pop-apologists to get and read the materials, though. Like trying to get someone to sit still in a root canal.

natamllc said...

TUAD

and you claim to be a Protestor?

I will gladly let you have the tallow from the calf to burn? The hide is already spoken for. I read about those Roman Candles lighting the night sky as Nero passed by? Was it him or do I have another emperor in mind marching by in triumphant over Truth?

By the way, while we are at it, wasn't Paul the Apostle who exhorted:

1Th 5:15 See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to everyone.

Could it be you lurch as well?

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Tim Enloe: "Still, it is available, and much of it is just like the patristic material in that it greatly strengthens the Protestant case and greatly weakens the pop-apologetics arguments that Reformation distinctives are sheer novelties. Particularly regarding the papacy, the Medieval evidence is like a tsunami against the silly notion that papalism was "always" believed by all "orthodox catholics" prior to the Reformation."

Thank you Tim. Affirms what Keith Mathison and John Bugay and Pastor King have been saying and writing.

Blogahon said...

Tim.

like a tsunami against the silly notion that papalism was "always" believed by all "orthodox catholics" prior to the Reformation

Can you define what you mean by 'papalism' here?

John Bugay said...

It does not seem possible, then, to avoid the conclusion that, whatever be the proper key for harmonizing the records and documents of the early and later Church, and true as the dictum of Vincentius must be considered in the abstract, and possible as its application might be in his own age, when he might almost ask the primitive centuries for their testimony, it is hardly available now, or effective of any satisfactory result. The solution it offers is as difficult as the original problem.

http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/introduction.html

Just sayin'

Blogahon said...

The history of doctrines or dogmas . . . Its object is to show how the mind of the church has gradually apprehended and unfolded the divine truths of revelation, how the teachings of scripture have been formulated and shaped into dogmas, and grown into creeds and confessions of faith, or systems of doctrine stamped with public authority. This growth of the church in the knowledge of the infallible word of God is a constant struggle against error, misblief, and unbelief; and the history of heresies is an essential part of the history of doctrines. Every important dogma now professed by the Christian church is the result of a severe conflict with error.

(Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 1: Apostolic Christianity: A.D. 1-100, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1910 [orig. rev. ed. of 1980]; rep. 1975, 10)

Augustine . . . manifestly acknowledges a gradual advancement of the church doctrine, which reaches its corresponding expression from time to time through the general councils; but a progress within the truth, without positive error.

(Ibid., vol. 3: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974 [orig. 1910], 344)

Within the limits of the Jewish theocracy and Catholic Christianity Augustine admits the idea of historical development or a gradual progress from a lower to higher grades of knowledge, yet always in harmony with Catholic truth. He would not allow revolutions and radical changes or different types of Christianity. "The best thinking" (says Dr. Flint, in his Philosophy of History in Europe, I. 40), "at once the most judicious and liberal, among those who are called the Christian fathers, on the subject of the progress of Christianity as an organization and system, is that of St. Augustine, as elaborated and applied by Vincent of Lerins in his 'Commonitorium,' where we find substantially the same conception of the development of the Church and Christian doctrine, which, within the present century, De Maistre has made celebrated in France, Mohler in Germany, and Newman in England.

(Philip Schaff, Introduction to City of God, 38-volume set of the Church Fathers, December 10, 1886

Just sayin...

Ken said...

But Manning's "appeal to ancient church history is a treason and a heresy"

It is that sentiment that is the root of 1215 (transubstantiation), 1302 (Boniface VIII's "every human creature must submit to the pope for salvation" and 1546-1564 (Trent) and 1854 (IC of Mary)

and it clearly was Manning's spirit in what won out in 1870 (Papal Infallibility) and his spirit was in the 1950 (BA of Mary) and also Pope Pius IX, who said "I am the tradition!"

Just saying . . .

Ken said...

Manning's spirit is also in

"Whatever your eyes see as Black, we proclaim to you is white, and you must submit to it" - becasue we say it - Ignaitus Loyola

(something like that)

just saying

natamllc said...

Ken

what possessed them to exhume Padre Peeo's body, rebuild it and over 800 thousand came to venerate it the months of 2008? Was Manning's spirit guiding them then too?

Could it be the reverse of what they did to Tyndale? Then Manning was just an addition or add on to the lurch upon unsuspecting souls of men?

natamllc said...

I also heard it said recently of Gregory the First that they will be guided by spirits and miracles.

Don't you have to have done a miracle or two or more to be so venerated to Sainthood with them?

I say True Biblical Christianity is so much easier a way to Sainthood, by the Gift of Faith, so that we enter into the joys of the Kingdom presently on earth as She is in Heaven because the reformation has been inaugurated by the sufferings of Christ and His rising already vindicated by the Spirit!

I think this whole human event, the papacy and her magisterium is just a bunch of learned old guys who couldn't shoot straight, or could, but were unwilling to tell the truth about the Truth!

The Day of the Lord is at hand!

1Ch 16:31 Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice, and let them say among the nations, "The LORD reigns!"
1Ch 16:32 Let the sea roar, and all that fills it; let the field exult, and everything in it!
1Ch 16:33 Then shall the trees of the forest sing for joy before the LORD, for he comes to judge the earth.

Ken said...

I don't know anything about the "Padre Peeo" stuff you mention.

Blogahon said...

nata.

You need to read the chapter in Augustine's 'Confessions' where he describes the bones of several martyred Christians (AKA relics) being carried throughout the town by the faithful Christians in AD 325 or so and healed by touching them.

Or:

"For even now miracles are wrought in the name of Christ, whether by his sacraments or by the prayers or relics of his saints . . . The miracle which was wrought at Milan when I was there. . . [and when people] had gathered to the bodies of the martyrs Protasius and Gervasius, which had long lain concealed and unknown but where now made known to the bishop Ambrose in a dream and discovered by him." (City of God 22:8 [A.D. 419]

I'll take the faith of Augustine with all the miracles, thank you very much.

dtking said...

"For even now miracles are wrought in the name of Christ, whether by his sacraments or by the prayers or relics of his saints . . . The miracle which was wrought at Milan when I was there...(City of God 22:8 [A.D. 419]

I'll take the faith of Augustine with all the miracles, thank you very much.


Augustine (354-430) to the Donatists: Renounce, therefore, all such things, and show your Church, if you can, not in the sayings of Africa, not in the Councils of your Bishops, not in signs and lying wonders but in the writings of the Law, the predictions of the Prophets, in the Psalms, in the words of the Shepherd Himself, in the preaching and labours of the Apostles—that is, by the authority of all books of the Canonical Scriptures.
For we do not say that we ought to be believed because we are in the Church of Christ, or because that Church to which we belong, was commended to us by Optatus, Ambrose, or other innumerable Bishops of our communion; or because miracles are everywhere wrought in it. These things are indeed to be approved, because they are done in the Catholic Church, but it is not thence proved to be the Catholic Church, because such things are done in it. Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, when He rose from the dead, and offered His body to be touched as well as seen by His disciples, lest there should be any fallacy in it, thought it proper to convince them, rather by the testimony of the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, showing how all things were fulfilled which had been foretold; and so He commanded His Church, saying, that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His Name, among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. This He testified was written in the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms; this we hold, as commended from His mouth. These are the documents, these the foundations, these the strong grounds of our cause. We read in the Acts of the Apostles, of some believers, that they daily searched the Scriptures if these things were so. What Scriptures? but the canonical books of the Law and the Prophets; to which are added the Gospels, the Apostolical Epistles, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Revelation of St. John, Search, then, all these, and bring forth something manifest, by which you may prove the Church to have remained only in Africa, or come out of Africa. For translation, see Charles Hastings Collette, Saint Augustine: A Sketch of His Life and Writings, A.D. 387-430 (London: W. H. Allen & Co., 1883), pp. 48-49; De Unitate Ecclesiae, Caput XIX, §47-51, PL 43:427-430.

Jae said...

Protestant would quote (out of context) the only ONE church father - Augustine, that they think was a prototype protestant.

DIRECT QUOTES FORM AUGUSTINE:

"I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so."
Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.

"The Catholic Church is the work of Divine Providence, achieved through the prophecies of the prophets, through the Incarnation and the teaching of Christ, through the journeys of the Apostles, through the suffering, the crosses, the blood and the death of the martyrs, through the admirable lives of the saints. When, then, we see so much help on God's part, so much progress and so much fruit, shall we hesitate to bury ourselves in the bosom of that Church? For starting from the Apostolic Chair down through successions of bishops, even unto the open confession of all mankind, it has possessed the crown of teaching authority."
The Advantage of Believing, 391 A.D.

"We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church which is Catholic, and which is called Catholic not only by her members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they would not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard."
The True Religion, 7,12, 397 A.D.


"This Church is Holy, the One Church, the True Church, the Catholic Church, fighting as she does against all heresies. She can fight, but she cannot be beaten. All heresies are expelled from her, like the useless loppings pruned from a vine. She remains fixed in her root, in her vine, in her love. The gates of hell shall not conquer her."
Sermon to Catechumens, on the Creed, 6,14, 395 A.D.

"But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept either by the Apostles themselves or by plenary Councils, the authority of which is quite vital to the Church."
Letter to Januarius 54,1,1, 400 A.D.

"I believe that this practice comes from apostolic tradition, just as so many other practices not found in their writings nor in the councils of their successors, but which, because they are kept by the whole Church everywhere, are believed to have been commended and handed down by the Apostles themselves."
Baptism 1,12,20, 400 A.D.


"Before His suffering the Lord Jesus Christ, as you know, chose His disciples, whom He called Apostles. Among these Apostles almost everywhere Peter alone merited to represent the whole Church. For the sake of his representing the whole Church, which he alone could do, he merited to hear, I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven (Matt 16:19)."
Sermons 295,2, 391 A.D.

"What they found in the Church they kept; what they learned, they taught; what they received from the fathers, they handed on to the sons."
Against Julian, 2,10,33, 421 A.D.

Cont.

Jae said...

Protestant would quote (out of context) the only ONE church father - Augustine, that they think was a prototype protestant.

DIRECT QUOTES FORM AUGUSTINE:

"I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so."
Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.

"The Catholic Church is the work of Divine Providence, achieved through the prophecies of the prophets, through the Incarnation and the teaching of Christ, through the journeys of the Apostles, through the suffering, the crosses, the blood and the death of the martyrs, through the admirable lives of the saints. When, then, we see so much help on God's part, so much progress and so much fruit, shall we hesitate to bury ourselves in the bosom of that Church? For starting from the Apostolic Chair down through successions of bishops, even unto the open confession of all mankind, it has possessed the crown of teaching authority."
The Advantage of Believing, 391 A.D.

"We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church which is Catholic, and which is called Catholic not only by her members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they would not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard."
The True Religion, 7,12, 397 A.D.

Jae said...

Cont:

QUOTES FROM AUGUSTINE:

"This Church is Holy, the One Church, the True Church, the Catholic Church, fighting as she does against all heresies. She can fight, but she cannot be beaten. All heresies are expelled from her, like the useless loppings pruned from a vine. She remains fixed in her root, in her vine, in her love. The gates of hell shall not conquer her."
Sermon to Catechumens, on the Creed, 6,14, 395 A.D.

"But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept either by the Apostles themselves or by plenary Councils, the authority of which is quite vital to the Church."
Letter to Januarius 54,1,1, 400 A.D.

"I believe that this practice comes from apostolic tradition, just as so many other practices not found in their writings nor in the councils of their successors, but which, because they are kept by the whole Church everywhere, are believed to have been commended and handed down by the Apostles themselves."
Baptism 1,12,20, 400 A.D.


"Before His suffering the Lord Jesus Christ, as you know, chose His disciples, whom He called Apostles. Among these Apostles almost everywhere Peter alone merited to represent the whole Church. For the sake of his representing the whole Church, which he alone could do, he merited to hear, I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven (Matt 16:19)."
Sermons 295,2, 391 A.D.

"What they found in the Church they kept; what they learned, they taught; what they received from the fathers, they handed on to the sons."
Against Julian, 2,10,33, 421 A.D.


"Since by Christ's favor we are Catholic Christians:"
Letter to Vitalis, 217,5,16, 427 A.D.

"By the same word, by the same Sacrament you were born, but you will not come to the same inheritance of eternal life, unless you return to the Catholic Church."
Sermons, 3, 391 A.D.

"Tell us straight out that you do not believe in the Gospel of Christ; for you believe what you want in the Gospel and disbelieve what you want. You believe in yourself rather than in the Gospel."
Against Faustus, 17, 3, 400 A.D.

"Adam sleeps that Eve may be formed; Christ dies that the Church may be formed. Eve is formed from the side of the sleeping Adam; the side of the dead Christ is pierced by the lance, so that the Sacraments may flow out, of which the Church is formed."
Homilies on the Gospel of John, 9,10, 416 A.D.

"What the soul is to man's body, the Holy Spirit is to the Body of Christ, which is the Church. The Holy Spirit does in the whole Church what the soul does in all members of one body. But see what you must beware of, see what you must take note of, see what you must fear. It happens that in the human body, or rather, off the body, some member, whether hand, finger, or foot, may be cut away. And if a member be cut off, does the soul go with it? When the member was in the body, it lived; and off, its life is lost. So too, a Christian man is Catholic while he lives in the body; cut off, he is made a heretic; the Spirit does not follow an amputated member."
Sermons, 267, 4, 391-430 A.D.

"Let us not listen to those who deny that the Church of GOD is able to forgive all sins. They are wretched indeed, because they do not recognize in Peter the rock and they refuse to believe that the keys of the kingdom of heaven, lost from their own hands, have been given to the Church." Christian Combat 31,33, 396 A.D.

Pax

Jae said...

Cont:

QUOTES FROM AUGUSTINE:

"This Church is Holy, the One Church, the True Church, the Catholic Church, fighting as she does against all heresies. She can fight, but she cannot be beaten. All heresies are expelled from her, like the useless loppings pruned from a vine. She remains fixed in her root, in her vine, in her love. The gates of hell shall not conquer her."
Sermon to Catechumens, on the Creed, 6,14, 395 A.D.

"But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept either by the Apostles themselves or by plenary Councils, the authority of which is quite vital to the Church."
Letter to Januarius 54,1,1, 400 A.D.

"I believe that this practice comes from apostolic tradition, just as so many other practices not found in their writings nor in the councils of their successors, but which, because they are kept by the whole Church everywhere, are believed to have been commended and handed down by the Apostles themselves."
Baptism 1,12,20, 400 A.D.


"Before His suffering the Lord Jesus Christ, as you know, chose His disciples, whom He called Apostles. Among these Apostles almost everywhere Peter alone merited to represent the whole Church. For the sake of his representing the whole Church, which he alone could do, he merited to hear, I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven (Matt 16:19)."
Sermons 295,2, 391 A.D.

"What they found in the Church they kept; what they learned, they taught; what they received from the fathers, they handed on to the sons."
Against Julian, 2,10,33, 421 A.D.


"Since by Christ's favor we are Catholic Christians:"
Letter to Vitalis, 217,5,16, 427 A.D.

"By the same word, by the same Sacrament you were born, but you will not come to the same inheritance of eternal life, unless you return to the Catholic Church."
Sermons, 3, 391 A.D.

"Tell us straight out that you do not believe in the Gospel of Christ; for you believe what you want in the Gospel and disbelieve what you want. You believe in yourself rather than in the Gospel."
Against Faustus, 17, 3, 400 A.D.

"Adam sleeps that Eve may be formed; Christ dies that the Church may be formed. Eve is formed from the side of the sleeping Adam; the side of the dead Christ is pierced by the lance, so that the Sacraments may flow out, of which the Church is formed."
Homilies on the Gospel of John, 9,10, 416 A.D.

"What the soul is to man's body, the Holy Spirit is to the Body of Christ, which is the Church. The Holy Spirit does in the whole Church what the soul does in all members of one body. But see what you must beware of, see what you must take note of, see what you must fear. It happens that in the human body, or rather, off the body, some member, whether hand, finger, or foot, may be cut away. And if a member be cut off, does the soul go with it? When the member was in the body, it lived; and off, its life is lost. So too, a Christian man is Catholic while he lives in the body; cut off, he is made a heretic; the Spirit does not follow an amputated member."
Sermons, 267, 4, 391-430 A.D.

"Let us not listen to those who deny that the Church of GOD is able to forgive all sins. They are wretched indeed, because they do not recognize in Peter the rock and they refuse to believe that the keys of the kingdom of heaven, lost from their own hands, have been given to the Church." Christian Combat 31,33, 396 A.D.

Pax

Jae said...

Let's go deep in protestant history!

Calvin on Baptism:

"...In baptism, God, REGENERATING us, engrafts us into the society of his church and makes us his own by adoption". Institutes of the Christian Religion (4.17.1)

Calvin on the interpretation of Scripture:

"We admit therefore, that ecclesiastical pastors are to be HEARD JUST LIKE CHRIST HIMSELF." Calvin's Letter to Sadoleto (Calvini Opera 5:404)

"Pastors and teachers ARE IN CHARGE OF ...scriptural interpretation-to keep doctrine whole and pure among believers." Institutes of the Christian Religion (4.3.4)

Calvin on the Eucharist:

"It is essential the different protestant factions come to agreement because a correct understanding of the Eucharist is NECESSARY FOR SALVATION." Little book on the Holy Supper.

May I add, it's kind of peculiar that the core belief of modern evangelicalism of being "born again" was totally absent from the teaching and writings of the reformers.

Can the modern protestant churches could even utter to say these words and teachings from their founders?

John Bugay said...

Jae -- your string of quotations here suffers from one fatal flaw, which is that you are wrongly assuming that the word "catholic" in Augustine means the same thing as "Roman Catholic" today.

I would believe that every Protestant here would affirm one holy universal church. And it's true that Augustine knew of a church structure of

But your understanding of these things is sufficiently naive that it causes you to look, well, fairly naive in thoughtlessly copying and pasting all of these things.

In short, you really don't know what you are talking about.

John Bugay said...

Ken, thanks for publishing this. I'm glad to see that Mathison has addressed this directly.

Here is the critical point: If the [Roman] church is infallible, appeals to history, tradition, and Scripture are superfluous. What the church teaches now must be what the church has always taught, regardless of what the actual evidence from Scripture and/or tradition might say.

Rome truly has no other choice if she wishes to maintain her current beliefs and practices. If she were to appeal to something like the Vincentian Canon (namely, that the true faith, the true interpretation of Scripture, is that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all), the pope would have to give up all claims to supremacy over the entire church, and the bulk of Roman peculiarities and practice would have to be jettisoned.


And that is the point of my citing Newman contra Vincent, above.

This helped me to formulate an analogy: the supposed (and usurped) Roman authority over the church, is to the genuine church, what pornography is to a genuine marriage.

There are one or two obvious exceptions. The supposed (and usurped) Roman authority over the church is quite a bit uglier, and it does far more damage.

But those who are drawn to the church of Rome as if its authority structure were some sort of beautiful woman are in reality drawn just as far away from the one true church as are porn-addicted men drawn away from their wives.

John Bugay said...

Just so Mathison's conclusion isn't missed:

The truth is that to be deep in real history, as opposed to Rome’s whitewashed, revisionist, and often forged history, is to cease to be a Roman Catholic.

dtking said...

Protestant would quote (out of context) the only ONE church father - Augustine, that they think was a prototype protestant.

1) How did the passage, which I cited from Augustine, represent him out of context? After all, I never claimed he said this or that in this particular context. You've simply asserted, er parroted what you've seen/heard others claim. I can only assume that you disagreed with what he said in De unitate Ecclesiae.

2) Augustine is not "the only ONE church father" I cite, and far from the only one I read. The presumption of this assertion speaks for itself.

3) It doesn't matter how many times such a notion is denied, the committed Romanist is only concerned to claim something of us which we ourselves never claim. We do not represent Augustine as a "prototype Protestant." Now, I'm sure you think that's relevant somehow, but you're simply parroting another false claim about Protestants, which I suppose you've heard from other Roman apologists. You certainly can't cite us saying that, now can you? Therefore you're are parroting and repeating a lie, apparently with no shame. Yet such a lie is shameful and only casts yourself in a negative light. If you must lie about us, in the service of mother Rome, does that somehow make it the moral thing to do? Augustine was a Catholic churchman, but he was not a Romanist.

4) Moreover, here is "cut and paste" Romanism at its best, and this is what we're offered with pride from either this source or another that offers the same precise list-> http://www.thecatholictreasurechest.com/august.htm . It would have been much easier for you simply to "cut and paste" the URL of the web site.

5) When one makes the effort, as I have, to fill my library with patristic works that I have actually read cover to cover, as well as secondary scholarly works on the same, we don't find this sort of fanatical "cut and paste," which anyone with access to the internet can accomplish, very impressive. Perhaps it's impressive to the one who falsely thinks he has thus sliced the jugular of whatever it is against which he's complaining.

6) Moreover, while it is true that many Protestants have a insufficient view of Christ's church, it does not mean that we all do, and it certainly does not mean that every time an ancient witness mentions the catholic church or tradition that it is equivalent to Romanism. It might serve you well actually to read all those works from Augustine which you cited, rather than bits and pieces. Take for example, Augustine's work The Christian Struggle (the last work you cited). I've read the better part of that work. Can you even tell me what volume offers the English translation of it?

dtking said...

Protestant would quote (out of context) the only ONE church father - Augustine, that they think was a prototype protestant.

1) How did the passage, which I cited from Augustine, represent him out of context? After all, I never claimed he said this or that in this particular context. You've simply asserted, er parroted what you've seen/heard others claim. I can only assume that you disagreed with what he said in De unitate Ecclesiae.

2) Augustine is not "the only ONE church father" I cite, and far from the only one I read. The presumption of this assertion speaks for itself.

3) We do not represent Augustine as a "prototype Protestant." Now, I'm sure you think that's relevant somehow, but you're simply parroting another false claim about Protestants, which I suppose you've heard from other Roman apologists. You certainly can't cite us saying that, now can you? Therefore you're are parroting and repeating a lie, apparently with no shame. Yet such a lie is shameful and only casts yourself in a negative light. If you must lie about us, in the service of mother Rome, does that somehow make it the moral thing to do? Augustine was a Catholic churchman, but he was not a Romanist.

dtking said...

Protestant would quote (out of context) the only ONE church father - Augustine, that they think was a prototype protestant.

1) How did the passage, which I cited from Augustine, represent him out of context? After all, I never claimed he said this or that in this particular context. You've simply asserted, er parroted what you've seen/heard others claim. I can only assume that you disagreed with what he said in De unitate Ecclesiae.

2) Augustine is not "the only ONE church father" I cite, and far from the only one I read. The presumption of this assertion speaks for itself.

3) We do not represent Augustine as a "prototype Protestant." Now, I'm sure you think that's relevant somehow, but you're simply parroting another false claim about Protestants, which I suppose you've heard from other Roman apologists. You certainly can't cite us saying that, now can you? Therefore you're are parroting and repeating a lie, apparently with no shame. Yet such a lie is shameful and only casts yourself in a negative light. If you must lie about us, in the service of mother Rome, does that somehow make it the moral thing to do? Augustine was a Catholic churchman, but he was not a Romanist.

dtking said...

cont.

4) Moreover, here is "cut and paste" Romanism at its best, and this is what we're offered with pride from either this source or another that offers the same precise list-> http://www.thecatholictreasurechest.com/august.htm . It would have been much easier for you simply to "cut and paste" the URL of the web site.

5) When one makes the effort, as I have, to fill my library with patristic works that I have actually read cover to cover, as well as secondary scholarly works on the same, we don't find this sort of fanatical "cut and paste," which anyone with access to the internet can accomplish, very impressive. Perhaps it's impressive to the one who falsely thinks he has thus sliced the jugular of whatever it is against which he's complaining.

6) Moreover, while it is true that many Protestants have a insufficient view of Christ's church, it does not mean that we all do, and it certainly does not mean that every time an ancient witness mentions the catholic church or tradition that it is equivalent to Romanism. It might serve you well actually to read all those works from Augustine which you cited, rather than bits and pieces. Take for example, Augustine's work The Christian Struggle (the last work you cited). I've read the better part of that work. Can you even tell me what volume offers the English translation of it?

Blogahon said...

DT King.

Your citation directly after mine regarding miracles of relics proves the point.

For Augustine, these miracles happen because this is the Catholic Church.

His words that you did not bold:

These things are indeed to be approved, because they are done in the Catholic Church, but it is not thence proved to be the Catholic Church, because such things are done in it.

Nobody here is pointing to these miracles as proof that Augustine's church was the Catholic Church. I think we agree on that. I am merely pointing out that Augustine revered relics and believed in miracles. Where are the relics in your church Pastor King?

The rest of your assumption in bringing up that citation was that the Catholic Church does not revere and search the scriptures. This is a straw man.

Augustine's ecclesiology includes: being in communion via the sacrament of Holy Orders and held in communion with apostolic succession from the very seat of Peter. This is the church he describes and it is precisely these things that your church lacks (among other things).

This is precisely why I have no fear over, as Tim suggests, for people to search the fathers. Case and point: Nata crassly dismissing the relics of Padre Pio and proof that the practice of venerating relics was practiced by Ambrose and Augustine.

Jae,

Notice how David T King's response to you is filled with him telling you that he is smarter than you and how big his library is and how we can judge which interpretations are the best. Notice how he does not interact with the citations at all, although he does dismiss them because you copied/pasted them from another website – but that does not make Augustine’s statements disappear.

Of all the fathers, Augustine more than any other brought me into the Catholic Church. I remember like yesterday when my Presbyterian pastor said, “Well, we can take the good from Augustine but reject the unbiblical – like his ecclesiology.”

Blogahon said...

DT King.

Your citation directly after mine regarding miracles of relics proves the point.

For Augustine, these miracles happen because this is the Catholic Church.

His words that you did not bold:

These things are indeed to be approved, because they are done in the Catholic Church, but it is not thence proved to be the Catholic Church, because such things are done in it.

Nobody here is pointing to these miracles as proof that Augustine's church was the Catholic Church. I think we agree on that. I am merely pointing out that Augustine revered relics and believed in miracles. Where are the relics in your church Pastor King?

The rest of your assumption in bringing up that citation was that the Catholic Church does not revere and search the scriptures. This is a straw man.

Augustine's ecclesiology includes: being in communion via the sacrament of Holy Orders and held in communion with apostolic succession from the very seat of Peter. This is the church he describes and it is precisely these things that your church lacks (among other things).

This is precisely why I have no fear over, as Tim suggests, for people to search the fathers. Case and point: Nata crassly dismissing the relics of Padre Pio and proof that the practice of venerating relics was practiced by Ambrose and Augustine.

Blogahon said...

Jae,

Notice how David T King's response to you is filled with him telling you that he is smarter than you and how big his library is and how we can judge which interpretations are the best. Notice how he does not interact with the citations at all, although he does dismiss them because you copied/pasted them from another website – but that does not make Augustine’s statements disappear.

Of all the fathers, Augustine more than any other brought me into the Catholic Church. I remember like yesterday when my Presbyterian pastor said, “Well, we can take the good from Augustine but reject the unbiblical – like his ecclesiology.”

Jae, do as Tim suggests and tackle Augustine in his extant writting. Even ask David T King for the best translations. All it will do is strengthen your Catholic faith.

Matthew D. Schultz said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matthew D. Schultz said...

Jae,

Notice how David King's response to you is exactly what you deserved for uncritically copying and pasting a list of quotations you've probably never read, let alone interacted with in a scholarly fashion. Consider that such behavior on your part deserves no response. David King might as well quote several pages from Jason Engwer's Catholic but Not Roman Catholic series and demand you interact with them, and, if you fail to even attempt such interaction, make all sorts of invalid inferences about the indefensible nature of distinctly Roman Catholic positions.

Ken said...

John,
You're welcome - thanks for citing the quote you gave from Newman (Newman is basically saying "can't find it in the earliest centuries"

". . . and true as the dictum of Vincentius must be considered in the abstract, and possible as its application might be in his own age, when he might almost ask the primitive centuries for their testimony, it is hardly available now, or effective of any satisfactory result. The solution it offers is as difficult as the original problem. "

DtKing - thanks for your books and contributions to the discussion!

I first learned about that quote in David King's and William Webster's three volume set -

And also the Manning quote -
So, thank you, Pastor Dtking for giving the quotes and the sources where to find them!

Thanks for the good, long, contextual quotes from Augustine and others here also.

Tim E. -
When you finish your Doctorate degree, we will expect a book or three volumes of quotes from the Medieval period of which he speaks that smashes the Papal doctrines and dogmas and shows them to be unhistorical in the earliest centuries - Tim - make it available for us who never learned Latin, don't live near a good library, and are too poor to purchase these books! and too busy with family, raising children, people ministry, missions, evangelism, teaching the word.

You have been commissioned!

Blogahon said...

David King might as well quote several pages from Jason Engwer's Catholic but Not Roman Catholic series and demand you interact with them, and, if you fail to even attempt such interaction, make all sorts of invalid inferences about the indefensible nature of distinctly Roman Catholic positions.


You mean like here?

Matthew D. Schultz said...

You mean like here?

That's a non-response. Have a good day.

Blogahon said...

that's a non response.

That is an assertion.

Have a great weekend.

Blogahon said...

A related post...

When I first read the works of the Church Fathers as a Protestant, it felt very odd. I didn’t know who any of them were, what they had done, or the context and times in which they had lived, but I did know that many of the things they taught bore little resemblance to my Protestant beliefs.

On doctrine after doctrine, their teachings aligned with the Catholic (and Orthodox) Churches rather than with Protestantism’s tenets.


Again, it is with great confidence that he urges anybody to read the fathers for themselves.

dtking said...

Where are the relics in your church Pastor King?

So, relics, or bones of the saints, are now officially one of the marks of the true church of Jesus Christ? We don't have relics, but since you think they are so important, here's what you ought to do with yours since you hold them in such high esteem - Take a cue from Hezekiah, He removed the high places and broke the sacred pillars, cut down the wooden image and broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made; for until those days the children of Israel burned incense to it, and called it Nehushtan (2Kings 18:4). You see, relics have the tendency to become idols.

Moreover, Augustine repudiated the veneration of saints in the idolatrous manner in which Rome looks to them...

Augustine (354-430): So the good slave, as I said, who is already to be called a son, doesn’t wish himself, but his master to be venerated. Think a little, brothers and sisters, and recall what you attend every day; what does truth teach you in church? The faithful know in what style the martyrs are commemorated in the mysteries, when our wishes and prayers are addressed to God. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Newly Discovered Sermons, Part 3, Vol. 11, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermon 198.12 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1997), p. 190.

Moreover, unlike Rome, he instructed against the invocation of angels...

Augustine (354-430): If anybody says to you, “Invoke the angel Gabriel in this way, invoke Michael in that; offer the former this little ritual, the latter this other”; don’t be taken in, don’t consent. And don’t let him mislead you just because the names of these angels can be read in the scriptures; observe rather in what role they are to be read there, whether they ever demanded from any men any kind of personal religious veneration for themselves, and did not rather always wish glory to be given to the one God, whom they obey. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Newly Discovered Sermons, Part 3, Vol. 11, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermon 198.47 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1997), p. 217.

One cannot read into Augustine's mention of a relic, or of saints and martyrs and angels, all the accretions of modern day Rome.

natamllc said...

Ken

I don't know anything about the "Padre Peeo" stuff you mention.

Have you done any research on Padre Pio?

He died in 1968 and by order of Rome/Vatican was exhumed in late 2007 or early 2008 and then a great time and money celebration was expended to his celebrity when he was laid in state venerated a saint worthy of veneration by subjects of Rome because of his good deeds.

That's a loose narrative of the RCC affair.

But for the dispute of the body of Moses, when can you recall in our Faith, once delivered to the Saints, is it ever written or directed by any Church tradition that the Holy Spirit ever leads anyone to do such things?

dtking said...

Notice how David T King's response to you is filled with him telling you that he is smarter than you and how big his library is and how we can judge which interpretations are the best.

No, you miss the point. I'm proving I don't "cut and paste" from Romanist web sites, you know, like you yourself have done as well? I actually do my own research. What a novel thought for a Romanist! :)

dtking said...

Your citation directly after mine regarding miracles of relics proves the point.

Only in a Walter Mitty world. :)

natamllc said...

Sean,

while I mean no disrespect to your cultural custom of holding teraphim in high regard within your religious practice, I simply am pointing out my deliverance from such practice seeing all that has done is bring me harm of soul!

I say that in reply to your words to Pastor King, here:

Nata crassly dismissing the relics of Padre Pio and proof that the practice of venerating relics was practiced by Ambrose and Augustine.

Why shouldn't a guy like me lay down those burdens now that the Holy Spirit have breathed His understanding of His Scriptures into me too? Scriptures such as these:

Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?
Rom 6:2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?
Rom 6:3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.



Heb 10:14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
Heb 10:15 And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,
Heb 10:16 "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,"
Heb 10:17 then he adds, "I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more."
Heb 10:18 Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.
Heb 10:19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus,
Heb 10:20 by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh,
Heb 10:21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God,
Heb 10:22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
Heb 10:23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful.


So, like some would say, I affirm, "it don't get any better than this"!

After all, Jesus did say to those the Hand of Our Heavenly Father touched, beckoning, "come unto Me all who are weary and heavy laden and I shall give you rest. Come, learn from Me. Take my yoke upon you. My yoke is easy and My burden is light!

And, seeing you "also" believe in the Elect Angels, how about this Word from that Angel to those women obviously seeking to cover a dead decaying corpse they believed, according to the Scriptures mind you was on the journey of all flesh, back to dust:

Luk 24:4 While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel.
Luk 24:5 And as they were frightened and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, "Why do you seek the living among the dead?


What did you say was the purpose for exhuming the corpse of Padre Pio?

Blogahon said...

You see, relics have the tendency to become idols.

Tell that to St. Augustine.

The faithful know in what style the martyrs are commemorated in the mysteries, when our wishes and prayers are addressed to God.

And he left us plenty of examples, including the aforementioned veneration of relics of the saints.

Your problem is not with me, it’s with Augustine.

"A Christian people celebrates together in religious solemnity the memorials of the martyrs, both to encourage their being imitated and so that it can share in their merits and be aided by their prayers."
Against Faustus the Manichean [A.D. 400]

"For even now miracles are wrought in the name of Christ, whether by his sacraments or by the prayers or relics of his saints...The miracle which was wrought at Milan when I was there...[and when people] had gathered to the bodies of the martyrs Protasius and Gervasius, which had long lain concealed and unknown but where now made known to the bishop Ambrose in a dream and discovered by him."
City of God 22:8 [A.D. 419]

Regarding prayer to angels, what is the primary source you are citing?

"Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!" (Ps. 103:20-21)

Blogahon said...

What a novel thought for a Romanist! :)

Only in a Walter Mitty world. :)

To follow John Bugay's lead, I'll take your insults as evidence of the weakness of your position and your lack of maturity to deal with it.

natamllc said...

Sean,

blogger is being naughty I suppose seeing I did not see this post and your request until late last night.

I will do my best this morning to address what I guess is your purposes for asking me to put the Reformed early church thinking into the contextual conception of those men whose writings you cite above?

First, Irenaeus of the second century: “Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist.

Hmmmmm, well, how does one respond to that seeing I am one of those who have deserted the preaching of the Romanist's version of the True Catholic/general Body of Christ? I have a bit of a problem even accepting those words to contextually conceptualize them into the True Reformational experience Scripture testifies was happening in the early True Church as the Gospel and New Testament letters attests was happening in the early True Church.

One can get a sense of the firm results of God's intended reformational experience from this writing by Paul written to the True Early Philippian Church, here:

Php 4:9 What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me--practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.

I suppose to conceive of a later writing from the second century as bringing about the same results as Paul is exhorting, the context of their writing would still be important for a conceptualization resulting in the God of Peace being nuanced there in the writer's teaching received, heard and seen and learned?

As the saying goes: If God ain't in it it ain't God in it!

Again, I suppose at some point we do have to be weaned from the bottle so that our private station is coequal with the True Church on earth as She is in Heaven then and now, that is, if God permits?

Heb 6:3 And this we will do if God permits.


The work of our private station on earth must occur before we can join to that predetermined station in Glory.

Like I have taught before, "if you do not die and go to Heaven before you die, when you die, you do not go to Heaven"

But no worries. If you are not born again, you will not be inclined to adoption anyway!

Ok, I will see if there is any more I would parse out of Irenaeus?

Irenaeus: "....not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth."

Yeah, that is true!

continuing

natamllc said...

John,

what gives?

I just posted a response to Sean's request to offer some thoughts about some of the second century writers and others and it posted then poof disappeared! grrrrr

John Bugay said...

Only in a Walter Mitty world. :)

Sean, if you take that as an insult, ... well ... nevermind ... I have always questioned your perception.

John Bugay said...

natamllc, perhaps your posting of scripture verses is perceived by the spam filter as a spam message. (Not the words themselves, but the formatting, the regular placement of numbers, etc.)

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/09/mystery-of-missing-blogger-comments.html

natamllc said...

John,

read that, thanks.

I noticed a post by Sean late last night that wasn't there before.

Was this post one you were able to retrieve from spam trash bin and post up onto the thread?

If so, could you check to see if what I just posted ended up there and if it is, could you try to bring it over here?

bless you and may the Good Lord keep you building strong walls that can withstand some pretty harsh winds to get you to change!

John Bugay said...

natamllc has left a new comment on the post "To Be Deep in History - excellent article by Keith...":

Sean,

blogger is being naughty I suppose seeing I did not see this post and your request until late last night.

I will do my best this morning to address what I guess is your purposes for asking me to put the Reformed early church thinking into the contextual conception of those men whose writings you cite above?

First, Irenaeus of the second century: “Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist.

Hmmmmm, well, how does one respond to that seeing I am one of those who have deserted the preaching of the Romanist's version of the True Catholic/general Body of Christ? I have a bit of a problem even accepting those words to contextually conceptualize them into the True Reformational experience Scripture testifies was happening in the early True Church as the Gospel and New Testament letters attests was happening in the early True Church.

One can get a sense of the firm results of God's intended reformational experience from this writing by Paul written to the True Early Philippian Church, here:

Php 4:9 What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me--practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.

I suppose to conceive of a later writing from the second century as bringing about the same results as Paul is exhorting, the context of their writing would still be important for a conceptualization resulting in the God of Peace being nuanced there in the writer's teaching received, heard and seen and learned?

As the saying goes: If God ain't in it it ain't God in it!

Again, I suppose at some point we do have to be weaned from the bottle so that our private station is coequal with the True Church on earth as She is in Heaven then and now, that is, if God permits?

Heb 6:3 And this we will do if God permits.


The work of our private station on earth must occur before we can join to that predetermined station in Glory.

Like I have taught before, "if you do not die and go to Heaven before you die, when you die, you do not go to Heaven"

But no worries. If you are not born again, you will not be inclined to adoption anyway!

Ok, I will see if there is any more I would parse out of Irenaeus?

Irenaeus: "....not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth."

Yeah, that is true!

continuing

natamllc said...

Sean,

Irenaeus: . It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them;

Well, again, contrary to Scripture there, I suppose?

This might have helped Irenaeus, here:

Mat 15:8 "'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;
Mat 15:9 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'"
Mat 15:10 And he called the people to him and said to them, "Hear and understand:
Mat 15:11 it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person."
Mat 15:12 Then the disciples came and said to him, "Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?"
Mat 15:13 He answered, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up.
Mat 15:14 Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit."


Or this,

1Th 5:20 Do not despise prophecies,
1Th 5:21 but test everything; hold fast what is good.


1Jn 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.


It seems to me that once you are One with Christ, conjoined to Him by the Hand of God, you have liberty to read and test everything you are led by the Holy Spirit to read and test!

According to Paul's writings you can even do a self-exam:


2Co 13:4 For he was crucified in weakness, but lives by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but in dealing with you we will live with him by the power of God.
2Co 13:5 Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?--unless indeed you fail to meet the test!
2Co 13:6 I hope you will find out that we have not failed the test.
2Co 13:7 But we pray to God that you may not do wrong--not that we may appear to have met the test, but that you may do what is right, though we may seem to have failed.
2Co 13:8 For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth.


Irenaeus: "....but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord's Scriptures."

You see, I have a different opinion about those words.

I would edit this way those word:

"....but to flee to God through Christ by One Spirit is the order being added by the sanctification work of the Holy Spirit to the True Church by way of being joined to a local Body of Christ, one should be brought up into maturity, not from her bosom, but by being nourished with the Lord's Scriptures through the Holy Communion we enter into when we also are added to the True Body of Christ, locally."

I know that edition blows out of the water the Romanist's nuance towards a Peterine See and Papacy and being confirmed by the Magisterium and by your church fathers' traditions, edicts and dogmas. But hey, what do you expect from me seeing I am also a Protestor of this house she is.

That's all I am going contextually conceptualize about the writings of Irenaeus.

Onto Origen and the others in the next post!

natamllc said...

Well John, it did it again!

I kept a copy of my next in line responses to Sean's request myself this time just in case it did not publish.

If you can publish that one too, I would be most grateful?

If you cannot, maybe I can email it to you and you can try to publish it that way?

John Bugay said...

natamllc has left a new comment on the post "To Be Deep in History - excellent article by Keith...":

Sean,

Irenaeus: . It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them;

Well, again, contrary to Scripture there, I suppose?

This might have helped Irenaeus, here:

Mat 15:8 "'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;
Mat 15:9 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'"
Mat 15:10 And he called the people to him and said to them, "Hear and understand:
Mat 15:11 it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person."
Mat 15:12 Then the disciples came and said to him, "Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?"
Mat 15:13 He answered, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up.
Mat 15:14 Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit."

Or this,

1Th 5:20 Do not despise prophecies,
1Th 5:21 but test everything; hold fast what is good.


1Jn 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

It seems to me that once you are One with Christ, conjoined to Him by the Hand of God, you have liberty to read and test everything you are led by the Holy Spirit to read and test!

According to Paul's writings you can even do a self-exam:


2Co 13:4 For he was crucified in weakness, but lives by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but in dealing with you we will live with him by the power of God.
2Co 13:5 Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?--unless indeed you fail to meet the test!
2Co 13:6 I hope you will find out that we have not failed the test.
2Co 13:7 But we pray to God that you may not do wrong--not that we may appear to have met the test, but that you may do what is right, though we may seem to have failed.
2Co 13:8 For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth.

Irenaeus: "....but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord's Scriptures."

You see, I have a different opinion about those words.

I would edit this way those word:

"....but to flee to God through Christ by One Spirit is the order being added by the sanctification work of the Holy Spirit to the True Church by way of being joined to a local Body of Christ, one should be brought up into maturity, not from her bosom, but by being nourished with the Lord's Scriptures through the Holy Communion we enter into when we also are added to the True Body of Christ, locally."

I know that edition blows out of the water the Romanist's nuance towards a Peterine See and Papacy and being confirmed by the Magisterium and by your church fathers' traditions, edicts and dogmas. But hey, what do you expect from me seeing I am also a Protestor of this house she is.

That's all I am going contextually conceptualize about the writings of Irenaeus.

Onto Origen and the others in the next post!

Blogahon said...

John,

Congrats on your ability to conceptualize the words of the church fathers in a such a way as to remove any possible historical context.

This explains a lot.

Ken said...

natamllc,
When I get time, I will have to do some online research on the Padre Pio stuff - interesting.

Thanks for that background.

I did not know.

The externalistic/ritualistic/touching graves and statues/grace as a substance/Marian practices and dogmas/indulgences/purgatory/mechanical ex opere operato priestly powers, etc. emphasis of Roman Catholicism is a massive turnoff; and I don't see how any informed Evangelical can be attracted to it.

natamllc said...

Next, Origen from the third century, then: "....according to the succession of the apostles."

Well, seeing we do have a problem in beliefs here, what can I say about successions? I would hope and wish Godspeed upon all Ministers to succeed after being duly ordained by the laying on of hands by the Presbytery and fulfill their calling! :)

After all, we can rely upon Scripture when exhorted the same:

Col 4:15 Give my greetings to the brothers at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house.
Col 4:16 And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea.
Col 4:17 And say to Archippus, "See that you fulfill the ministry that you have received in the Lord."
Col 4:18 I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand. Remember my chains. Grace be with you.


Now, of course, not wanting to be overly insulting here, but who put those chains on Paul and why?

Next, Cyprian: "The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, 'He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathereth not with me scattereth.'"

Quite amazing as it may be, I find those words worth pondering and we should become duty bound in keeping!

Now, of course Sean, if citing Cyprian here to conflate with the True Church's teachings on keeping Herself pure until the wedding day, implying there is a whore out there saying she is the Bride of Christ, I find something I read in a book authored by Dr. J.V. Fesko, who is currently teaching at the Westminster Seminary in Southern California, that sheds some light on my adverse feelings towards the adulterous impure woman referred to who exists in Cyprian's words above. In his book, Justification*Understanding the Classic Reformed Doctrine, PR Publishing at pages 377-8:

Some have recently argued that with the watershed of Vatican 2 a new age has dawned in Protestant-Catholic relations and that much of the Protestant analysis of Roman Catholic theology has been rendered obsolete. Yet one has to wonder whether Vatican 2 actually moves the discussion forward. Instead, Vatican 2 more clearly reveals the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification. Trent affirmed the idea that justification is based on both the forensic and transformative. Moreover, given that one can be even further justified by his faith cooperating with good works, then it does not seem like that far of a stretch to argue that even unbelievers can be justified on the basis of their own works apart from the work of Christ.

Such is the teaching of Vatican 2's
Lumen Gentium, which states that Muslims are part of the plan of salvation: "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, first among whom are the Muslims: they profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, who will judge humanity on the last day. To say the least, this statement is completely at odds with the historic understanding of Christianity vis-a'-vis Islam. It is one thing to say that Muslims are theists, and entirely another to say that Allah and Yahweh are one and the same and that Muslims hold to the faith of Abraham, which Paul calls the gospel (Gal. 3:8-9).

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Blogahon and others,

Do you like C.S. Lewis? If so, here's a nice collection of quotes from him at: To Be Deep in Medieval History.

natamllc said...

That's not saying very much for keeping purity within your Roman Catholic Church's current views, now is it when she wants to sleep on the same couch as Islam?

You do agree and hold firmly to the wisdom of Vatican 2, don't you, Sean?

And you did say that the True Church is God's pure spotless Bride, you know, the One He walks down the isle side by side with to give Her, who has made Herself ready, pure and spotless for that day, to His Son, didn't you?

Finally, Augustine: "But those reasons which I have here given, I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, or from the nature itself of numbers and of similitudes. No sober person will decide against reason, no Christian against the Scriptures, no peaceable person against the church."

I recall Pastor King write something about Augustine to the effect that, though he was a Catholic father of his day, he wasn't a Romanist.

With that being said, I would read his words and accept the wisdom with which he writes.

Again, Sean, as is your course and custom, you want to conflate facts with fictions.

I would observe something about the false and the True by these Words of Scripture. Keep in mind that both of them were quoting Scripture as the basis for their authority when speaking:

Luk 4:1 And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness
Luk 4:2 for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And he ate nothing during those days. And when they were ended, he was hungry.
Luk 4:3 The devil said to him, "If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread."
Luk 4:4 And Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone.'"
Luk 4:5 And the devil took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time,
Luk 4:6 and said to him, "To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will.
Luk 4:7 If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours."
Luk 4:8 And Jesus answered him, "It is written, "'You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.'"
Luk 4:9 And he took him to Jerusalem and set him on the pinnacle of the temple and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here,
Luk 4:10 for it is written, "'He will command his angels concerning you, to guard you,'
Luk 4:11 and "'On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.'"
Luk 4:12 And Jesus answered him, "It is said, 'You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.'"
Luk 4:13 And when the devil had ended every temptation, he departed from him until an opportune time.


I am now just wondering out loud here, might it be that you are being played a fiddle during another one of the Devil's opportune times?

You want context and concept, yet you want it the way you have been taught. How can anyone of us fault you on this?

What we can do is test your context and concept and determine whether or not it is Truth seeing Truth is a Who and not a what as Pilate found out himself when he asked Jesus "What is Truth":::>

Joh 18:38 Pilate said to him, "What is truth?" After he had said this, he went back outside to the Jews and told them, "I find no guilt in him.

natamllc said...

Finally, Augustine: "But those reasons which I have here given, I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, or from the nature itself of numbers and of similitudes. No sober person will decide against reason, no Christian against the Scriptures, no peaceable person against the church."

I recall Pastor King write something about Augustine to the effect that, though he was a Catholic father of his day, he wasn't a Romanist.

With that being said, I would read his words and accept the wisdom with which he writes.

Again, Sean, as is your course and custom, you want to conflate facts with fictions.

I would observe something about the false and the True by these Words of Scripture. Keep in mind that both of them were quoting Scripture as the basis for their authority when speaking:

Luk 4:1 And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness
Luk 4:2 for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And he ate nothing during those days. And when they were ended, he was hungry.
Luk 4:3 The devil said to him, "If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread."
Luk 4:4 And Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone.'"
Luk 4:5 And the devil took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time,
Luk 4:6 and said to him, "To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will.
Luk 4:7 If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours."
Luk 4:8 And Jesus answered him, "It is written, "'You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.'"
Luk 4:9 And he took him to Jerusalem and set him on the pinnacle of the temple and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here,
Luk 4:10 for it is written, "'He will command his angels concerning you, to guard you,'
Luk 4:11 and "'On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.'"
Luk 4:12 And Jesus answered him, "It is said, 'You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.'"
Luk 4:13 And when the devil had ended every temptation, he departed from him until an opportune time.


I am now just wondering out loud here, might it be that you are being played a fiddle during another one of the Devil's opportune times?

You want context and concept, yet you want it the way you have been taught. How can anyone of us fault you on this?

What we can do is test your context and concept and determine whether or not it is Truth seeing Truth is a Who and not a what as Pilate found out himself when he asked Jesus "What is Truth":::>

Joh 18:38 Pilate said to him, "What is truth?" After he had said this, he went back outside to the Jews and told them, "I find no guilt in him.

natamllc said...

Well Sean, there, I finished off with Augustine to fulfill your request to nata. Can you put the following in a Reformed early church conception context?

I made some comments from my point of view regarding Irenaeus, Origen, Cyprian and Augustine.

My last post about Augustine also did not post, so I am at the mercy of John to repost it when he has time.

Dozie said...

"I recall Pastor King write something about Augustine to the effect that, though he was a Catholic father of his day, he wasn't a Romanist"

1. Where do reasonable people find Catholics claim that Augustine was a "Romanist"?

2. Who is a romanist and what is the Protestant history of that (since Prots are big on de-historizing history).

Jae said...

@John Bugay said, "your string of quotations here suffers from one fatal flaw, which is that you are wrongly assuming that the word "catholic" in Augustine means the same thing as "Roman Catholic" today."

Hmmm, I think you're right Mr. Bugay because Augustine always emphasized being in communion with apostolic succession from the Petrine Primacy, aside from the fact he also believes in the True prescence of the Body and Blood of Christ while at the same time being a priest himself celebrating the Liturgy of the Mass. This is the church he describes and it is precisely these things that your church lacks.

So, at the end of the day you really don't know what you're talking about.

John Bugay said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Bugay said...

Jae -- Augustine is far more complicated than you are letting on. Yes, he held to succession. In fact, his sense of authority was so well-defined that it led to doctrines permitting persecution which later fed into the Inquisition.

But he had no thoughts at all about "Petrine primacy," especially not as you understand it -- I believe Pastor King has noted that there is one mention of Petrine primacy in all of Augustine, and this does not refer to a papacy. And at any rate, what Augustine believed about Peter was, in the words of Eamon Duffy, "pious fiction."

As far as the "true presence of the body and blood of Christ," this is far more nuanced, too, and it cannot be said that he believed in "transubstantiation."

Edward Kilmartin, "The Eucharist in the West," says:

He emphasizes the relation of [the mystery of one bread, one body, 1 Cor 10:17] to the unity of the whole Christ. For him the content (res) of the sacrament is Christ and the Church. However the Church is the res, the content of the sacrament, only insofar as it is holy, that is, according to its invisible being. (24)

I doubt that you will find that notion in modern Roman teaching.

Augustine agrees with the faith of the Church in the matter of a real dynamic presence of Christ in the context of the eucharistic celebration. However, Augustine agrees in all respects neither with the Greek Fathers nor with the later doctrinal position of the west. A careful analysis of Augustine's treatment of John 6, clearly shows that he does not teach the eucharistic realism of Chrystostom or Hilary of Poitiers. Later on, the early medieval interpretation of Augustine progressively downplays his eucharistic spiritual interpretation of the sacraments of the body and blood. That Augustine's eucharistic theology could be interpreted spiritually is obvious from such texts as Enarrationes in Ps 98:9 which reads:

"Understand spiritually what I have spoken. It is not the body, which you see, that you will eat, nor drink that blood which is shed…I have commended to you a sacrament; understood spiritually, it will make you live" (25-36)


It's true that Augustine's teaching on the Eucharist was more complex than that. But these "symbolic" elements are not going to be found in modern Roman teaching.

He certainly did not view "church teaching" as you view it. He says,

We, who preach and write books, [speaking of bishops of the church], write in a manner altogether different from the manner in which the canon of Scriptures has been written. We write while we make progress. We learn something new every day. We dictate at the same time as we explore. We speak as we still knock for understanding … I urge your Charity, on my behalf and in my own case, that you should not take any previous book or preaching of mine as Holy Scripture…If anyone criticizes me when I have said what is right, he does not do right. But I would be more angry with the one who praises me and takes what I have written for Gospel truth than the one who criticizes me unfairly." (Peter Brown citing "Confessions," trans. Henry Chadwick, 1991, in "Augustine of Hippo, A Biography," from the new chapter, "New Evidence," pg 451).

Blogahon said...

It's true that Augustine's teaching on the Eucharist was more complex than that. But these "symbolic" elements are not going to be found in modern Roman teaching.

That is completely false.

natamllc said...

Dozie

"I recall Pastor King write something about Augustine to the effect that, though he was a Catholic father of his day, he wasn't a Romanist"

1. Where do reasonable people find Catholics claim that Augustine was a "Romanist"?

2. Who is a romanist and what is the Protestant history of that (since Prots are big on de-historizing history).


First, I am finding it hard to believe you are not now being nefarious! grrrr

Second, would you review your two questions and see if you want to amend them?

Third, why I open with that charge of wickedness is because it seems to me you are acting quite like Scripture teaches men acted towards Christ when their backs were up against the Eternal Unchanging Truths of the Law and Gospel and then not turn towards Him as Lord with open hearts and be transformed by the Spirit of Grace as we Christians are led to do:


Pro 1:23 If you turn at my reproof, behold, I will pour out my spirit to you; I will make my words known to you.

Pro 16:20 Whoever gives thought to the word will discover good, and blessed is he who trusts in the LORD.



Luk 20:19 The scribes and the chief priests sought to lay hands on him at that very hour, for they perceived that he had told this parable against them, but they feared the people.
Luk 20:20 So they watched him and sent spies, who pretended to be sincere, that they might catch him in something he said, so as to deliver him up to the authority and jurisdiction of the governor.
Luk 20:21 So they asked him, "Teacher, we know that you speak and teach rightly, and show no partiality, but truly teach the way of God.
Luk 20:22 Is it lawful for us to give tribute to Caesar, or not?"


I would go a bit deeper and ask, why did Jesus ask them about the Baptize of John and where it was from? Are you satisfied with your conclusion as to why they answered Him so when His Authority was being called into question by their authorities, of men, allowed by God and so ordained so they too could be apart of fulfilling His Story?

natamllc said...

Hi Sean,

need we continue? Was my response to your question something else?

Might you go ahead and offer your conception in context then as to the writings of Irenaeus, Origen, Cyprian and Augustine?

Tim Enloe said...

Ken,

A good bit of the material of which I speak is already up on my website, formerly Societas Christiana, now rechristened Ad Fontes (http://http://thediscardedimage.com/adfontes/). Much of it is in the categories 12th Century, 13th Century, 14th Century, 15th Century, and Conciliar Theory and Practice.

Unfortunately, the material is not really arranged in any coherent order, so it takes a good bit of reading through the posts to get a sense of the shape of the Medieval anti-papalist arguments. The best coherent summary I have had time to produce is my B.A. thesis, "Catholic Conciliarism and the Protestant Reformation." I don't know if it's proper to post links to materials for sale here (though it's not very expensive), so if you are interested in that, you can drop me a line at tgenloe@gmail.com. Still, in that thesis I was forced to chop out much of the relevant material from papalists themselves due to the constraints of my thesis committee. A whole great big wad of arguments remains unpublished on my hard drive because I have yet to have time to whip it into publishable shape.

However, some additional summaries may be found in a series I started on the Basilica blog - http://thebasilica.wordpress.com/2009/06/27/on-the-medieval-catholic-background-of-the-reformation-two-kingdoms-doctrine-i-the-mixed-legacy-of-st-augustine/. I haven't finished that yet, either, due to my own family and job responsibilities. (I have a wife and three little girls at home, and to put bread on the table I am presently working 50+ hours a week teaching at a Christian school.)

Anyway, perhaps some of the above linked material will help. When I said these things are a "tsunami," I meant it. They do not show that it is absolutely idiotic to be a papalist, but they do show that the Medieval theological-political tradition is far more complex than any RC apologist has ever yet grappled with - again, because those folks don't read the sources or carefully study the relevant scholarship. Moreoever, these materials make it possible, if one wished to do so, to turn Newman's development hypothesis on its head by showing the parallel development, along with papalism, of a completely different trajectory of theology throughout the Middle Ages.

Ree said...

Wow, Tim, you have three girls now? Last I remember seeing you mention it, your wife was pregnant with number 2, and I didn't think that was very long ago. Congratulations.

James Swan said...

Ree said...

Always great to see you here Ree!

Tim Enloe said...

Thanks, Ree. It's a challenge, to be sure, but my life is far richer than it used to be - back in the day when I cared only about schoolwork and arguing with Catholics on message boards. Funny how marriage and children alters most of one's perspective on life.

John Bugay said...

Sean -- That is completely false.

Perhaps you'd care to show me, in the link that you provided, where precisely these words are in the Roman teaching on the Eucharist:

"Understand spiritually what I have spoken. It is not the body, which you see, that you will eat, nor drink that blood which is shed…I have commended to you a sacrament; understood spiritually, it will make you live"

These are the words I said that you would not find in the Roman doctrine.

Show us precisely what you were jumping on.

Ree said...

Hi James,

Thanks :-)

I actually check in here fairly regularly, even though I don't post much.

John Bugay said...

Hi Ree :-)

dtking said...

Tell that to St. Augustine.

He's already told it to you-> "The faithful know in what style the martyrs are commemorated in the mysteries, when our wishes and prayers are addressed to God."

And he left us plenty of examples, including the aforementioned veneration of relics of the saints.

He didn't bow down to them or pray to them.

Your problem is not with me, it’s with Augustine.

The quote from Augustine doesn't support the Roman notion of veneration.

"For even now miracles are wrought in the name of Christ, whether by his sacraments or by the prayers or relics of his saints...The miracle which was wrought at Milan when I was there...[and when people] had gathered to the bodies of the martyrs Protasius and Gervasius, which had long lain concealed and unknown but where now made known to the bishop Ambrose in a dream and discovered by him."
City of God 22:8 [A.D. 419]


And this is suppose to prove what, that Augustine prayed to saints and exhorted you to collect relics for the church? I don't think so. Indicatives don't prove imperatives.

Regarding prayer to angels, what is the primary source you are citing?

The primary source was given to you in the quotation. My research of Augustine doesn't suffer from the malady like that of most Romanist apologists who depend on Google for the extent of what they knew. It might help you to start purchasing and reading some of Augustine's works. I commend to you the Roman publisher, New City Press, which is in the process of translating and publishing all of Augustine's works. And for starters, purchase this volume from which I cited, John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Newly Discovered Sermons, Part 3, Vol. 11, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1997).

cont.

dtking said...

cont.

Augustine (354-430): So the good slave, as I said, who is already to be called a son, doesn’t wish himself, but his master to be venerated. Think a little, brothers and sisters, and recall what you attend every day; what does truth teach you in church? The faithful know in what style the martyrs are commemorated in the mysteries, when our wishes and prayers are addressed to God. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Newly Discovered Sermons, Part 3, Vol. 11, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermon 198.12 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1997), p. 190.

dtking said...

cont.

Augustine (354-430): Let not our religion be the worship of dead men. If they lived pious lives, it must not be supposed that they seek divine honours. They want us to worship him, in whose light they rejoice to have us as sharers in their merit. They are to be honoured by imitation and not adored with religious rites. If they lived evil lives, wherever they now are, they are not to be worshipped. John H. S. Burleigh, trans., The Library of Christian Classics, Augustine: Earlier Writings, Of True Religion, lv, 108 (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1953), p. 254.

dtking said...

cont.

Augustine (354-430): Because Paul and Barnabas were working miracles in Christ, because they had exceeded merely human limits, the pagans according to their wont called Barnabas Jupiter and Paul Mercury, because he was the readier talker, and they had already started to dedicate victims to them. They were so horrified by this honor that they tore their clothes and tried to teach them, as best they could, who alone was to be venerated, the one by whose power they were doing these things. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Newly Discovered Sermons, Part 3, Vol. 11, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermon 198.13 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1997), p. 193.

dtking said...

cont.

Augustine (354-430): Why have I said this? Please consider carefully the chief point I’m making. We had started to deal with the apparently better educated pagans—because the less educated are the ones who do the things about which these do not wish to be taken to task—so with the better educated ones, since they say to us, “You people also have your adorers of columns, and sometimes even of pictures.” And would to God that we didn’t have them, and may the Lord grant that we don’t go on having them! But all the same, this is not what the Church teaches you. I mean, which priest of theirs ever climbed into a pulpit and from there commanded the people not to adore idols, in the way that we, in Christ, publicly preach against the adoration of columns or of the stones of buildings in holy places, or even of pictures? On the contrary indeed, it was their very priests who used to turn to the idols and offer them victims for their congregations, and would still like to do so now.
“We,” they say, “don’t adore images, but what is signified by the image.” I ask what images signify, I ask what the image of the sun signifies; nothing else but the sun, surely? For yes, perhaps the explanation of other images convey deeper, more hidden meanings. For the time being let’s leave these, and put them on one side to come back to shortly. The image of the sun, certainly, can only signify the sun, and that of the moon the moon, and that of Tellus the earth. So if they don’t adore what they see in the image, but what the image signifies, why, when they have the things signified by these images so familiarly before their very eyes, do they offer adoration to their images in stead of directly to them? John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Newly Discovered Sermons, Part 3, Vol. 11, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermon 198.16-17 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1997), p. 193.

dtking said...

cont.

Augustine (354-430): He (God), I mean, has no need of worshipers; you, though, do need him worshiped. I said to the Lord, says the prophet, my God you are, because you have no need of my good things (Ps 16:2). So if He alone can without pride demand to be worshiped, anyone else who demands this and arrogates to himself the right to be worshiped as his own personal and proper due, who is not satisfied with being venerated in the one who created him, is demanding this out of pride. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Newly Discovered Sermons, Part 3, Vol. 11, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermon 198.22 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1997), p. 197.

dtking said...

cont.

Augustine (354-430): So if the reason he’s worshiped is that he is a middle something, why is that one not rather worshiped who calls back to himself the wit which you put in the middle, in order to make it break with and turn away from inferior things and unite itself to him? Such is the wit of the saints, the wit of the martyrs, the wit of the angels. Because if wit is such as that angel displayed whom I mentioned, wit enlightened by God, it thrusts away from itself any human veneration, and admonishes the one who would venerate it to venerate God instead. Venerate God, he said, for I too am your fellow slave, and the fellow of your brethren (Rv 19:10; 22:9). John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Newly Discovered Sermons, Part 3, Vol. 11, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermon 198.24 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1997), p. 198.

dtking said...

cont.

Augustine (354-430): And those who separate are numerous, because the multitude of the blessed are blessed only by their participation in the one God; of which participation the evil angels being deprived, they are wretched, and interpose to hinder rather than to help to this blessedness, and by their very number prevent us from reaching that one beatific good, to obtain which we need not many but one Mediator, the uncreated Word of God, by whom all things were made, and in partaking of whom we are blessed. I do not say that He is Mediator because He is the Word, for as the Word He is supremely blessed and supremely immortal, and therefore far from miserable mortals; but He is Mediator as He is man, for by His humanity He shows us that, in order to obtain that blessed and beatific good, we need not seek other mediators to lead us through the successive steps of this attainment, but that the blessed and beatific God, having Himself become a partaker of our humanity, has afforded us ready access to the participation of His divinity. NPNF1: Vol. II, The City of God, Book IX, Chapter 15.