tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post6331702007095519832..comments2024-03-22T16:09:48.895-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Sola WindsoraJames Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-80233587508700776242018-05-13T00:40:53.296-04:002018-05-13T00:40:53.296-04:00Scott,
This party ended five years ago. :)
JSScott,<br /><br />This party ended five years ago. :)<br /><br />JSJames Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-81738843772787425492018-05-12T23:38:43.781-04:002018-05-12T23:38:43.781-04:00CD_Host said: Saw this link indirectly from Green ...CD_Host said: <i>Saw this link indirectly from Green Baggins since Scott posted a blog reply. Most Catholics make a purely historical argument for the authority of the Catholic church.</i><br /><br />sw: The fact of the matter is while we DON'T "make a purely historical argument for the authority of the Church" one CAN be made! While the Church was in persecution and hiding for most of the first 300 years of Christendom, it was not without leadership during those 300 years AND what emerged after 325AD is certainly a Church with structure and hierarchy already in place - whether you look to ecclesial or secular sources - this is undeniable. <br /><br />CD_Host continues: <i>I.E.<br /><br />Premise 1: Jesus is the living son of God and worthy of our obedience (proven by some other means)</i><br /><br />sw: I have no dispute with this statement/premise.<br /><br />CD continues: <i>Premise 2: Jesus founded a earthy institution to carry on his work as his vicar (can be proven by purely neutral secular history)<br /><br />What comes to CtCers as a shock is that Premise 2 falls apart on examination rather quickly. The secular neutral history not only doesn't confirm their theories it outright refutes them.</i><br /><br />sw: First off, there really is no such thing as "secular neutral history." History is primarily recorded by the victors. Secondly, I'd like to see which "history" CD refers to which "outright refutes" us. As already stated, that which emerged out of hiding when the Roman persecutions officially ended in the early 4th century is most definitely a Church with structure, hierarchy and authority. As I also already stated, we don't exclusively argue from non-ecclesial sources - and Scripture itself records true and actual authority given to men to govern the Church. That authority is found singularly in one man (our first pope) in Matthew 16:18-19 and then similar authority is given to the college of Apostles (our first bishops) in Matthew 18:18. <br /> <br />AMDG (Latin acronym: "To the greater glory of God"),<br />Scott<<<CathApolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11555309542380876999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-54868970809861549052018-05-10T21:27:56.114-04:002018-05-10T21:27:56.114-04:00With the name change of the CathApol Blog, the lin...With the name change of the CathApol Blog, the link I previously provided is no longer valid. Now you can access my response at: <a href="http://quilocutus.blogspot.com/2013/08/authority-of-church-outside-bible.html" rel="nofollow">http://quilocutus.blogspot.com/2013/08/authority-of-church-outside-bible.html</a>.<br /> <br />Any existing links to cathapol.blogspot.com can still be accessed if you change "cathapol" to "quilocutus".<br /> <br />BTW- My degree is finished, so "I'm Back!" :-)<br /> <br />AMDG,<br />Scott<<<<br />CathApolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11555309542380876999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-49938557831123936532013-08-18T07:22:23.967-04:002013-08-18T07:22:23.967-04:00Saw this link indirectly from Green Baggins since ...Saw this link indirectly from Green Baggins since Scott posted a blog reply. Most Catholics make a purely historical argument for the authority of the Catholic church.<br /><br />I.E.<br /><br />Premise 1: Jesus is the living son of God and worthy of our obedience (proven by some other means)<br /><br />Premise 2: Jesus founded a earthy institution to carry on his work as his vicar (can be proven by purely neutral secular history)<br /><br />What comes to CtCers as a shock is that Premise 2 falls apart on examination rather quickly. The secular neutral history not only doesn't confirm their theories it outright refutes them. CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-48003893731838411972013-08-16T19:28:45.644-04:002013-08-16T19:28:45.644-04:00I was not aware of this article until today, I res...I was not aware of this article until today, I responded to both Swan and TF here:<br /> <br /><a href="http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2013/08/authority-of-church-outside-bible.html" rel="nofollow">http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2013/08/authority-of-church-outside-bible.html</a>CathApolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11555309542380876999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-55429162579785517592013-04-06T22:51:12.558-04:002013-04-06T22:51:12.558-04:00To my surprise, one of the things I learned of in ...To my surprise, one of the things I learned of in my browsing of that discussion...is that only parts of infallible councils are in fact infallible, or even correct.<br /><br />Paul as the author of Hebrews is not considered infallible, at least according to Cross, because it is not a matter of faith and morals. But the book of Hebrews as part of the canon is of course. I assume, though could be wrong, that the reason Hebrews was considered canon for Trent, was because they thought it was written by Paul. Ironic.<br /><br />Not that I am in a position to determine who wrote Hebrews...but most scholarship, even RC, does not hold to this any longer.<br /><br />in Him,<br /><br />Joe HJoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18261351748058047837noreply@blogger.com