tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post8414929109824468241..comments2024-03-22T16:09:48.895-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: The Protestant's Dilemma: A Review (Part Four): Ecumenical CouncilsJames Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-41256794294076094862015-01-28T17:50:09.629-05:002015-01-28T17:50:09.629-05:00"They contend that for a council to be consid..."They contend that for a council to be considered an ecumenical (and therefore authoritative) one, it had to have been attended by all five major patriarchs (bishops of important cities or areas): those of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. They claim that the first four councils met this criterion." <br /><br />The 2nd Oecumenical Council does not match this criterion since Rome had no part in it. It was presided by Meletius who died during it. Meletius was the rival of Paulinus, Damase was in communion with the later and not with the former.<br /><br />So Meletius and Rome were not in communion and this Council was held without Rome participation in any way. <br /><br />The meletian schism is a known event and that Devin Rose does not seem to know about it is no surprise. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-13827722412220165772015-01-25T18:16:46.640-05:002015-01-25T18:16:46.640-05:00Hey Pete,
That was excellent and exactly right.
...Hey Pete,<br />That was excellent and exactly right. <br /><br />Guy,<br />If you click on "Mariolatry" on the labels/topic/subject sidebar, you will see that many of the articles are ones that I wrote - and I labeled them "Mariolatry".<br /><br />I agree with James that the theological intention and meaning of Theotokos was about Jesus. Mary as "The one who was bearing and bore God" - that Jesus always existed and when entered the womb of Mary, He was always God even in the womb. Mary provided the human nature for Jesus to have 2 natures - a human nature and divine nature. <br /><br />The main reason for not engaging you lately is time and also a lot of the information that you keep demanding either we already discussed or is available in past articles here, or easily available somewhere else.<br /><br />Pete is right and a good model for how to engage the issues.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-63526475824019884532015-01-25T18:14:22.837-05:002015-01-25T18:14:22.837-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-2019103535291684372015-01-25T17:17:32.431-05:002015-01-25T17:17:32.431-05:00Hi Guy!
“Mariolatry” isn’t a pejorative term, but...Hi Guy!<br /><br />“Mariolatry” isn’t a pejorative term, but it’s how they encapsulate their understanding of our belief system in a single term. They view “adoration” and “hyperdulia” as being a distinction without a difference. They view prayer as something to be made only to God and as an extension of worship. Etc. Mariolatry is an accurate description from their perspective. Mary is in undisturbed, eternal felicity. We may leave it to God to avenge His cause.<br /><br />It can take people a long time to craft a response to online interactions. And the owner of a blog simply does not always have an interest in pursuing the related points of discussion raised by those who comment. Their blog is a means of sharing their own theological interests and inviting others to join in on their pursuit. But it’s to their own discretion how far the interaction will go on any given topic without our needing to assign bad motives.<br /><br />Several times I’ve noticed you make the comment about not being the initiator of “nastiness.” But our Lord Jesus says to those who hear, “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also” (Luke 6:27-29). “For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:46-48). He commands us, and His love in us compels us to it. We Catholics are held to a higher standard and will be judged more strictly.<br /><br />Based on the volume of comments you’ve posted here, you may want to consider having your own blog and interacting with Beggars All from there. Volume is not necessarily a bad thing (Calvin complained of Augustine’s wordiness; but, although Augustine tried to guard against this, Augustine could also make the point that his wordiness might be helpful to the slow of learning), but I think that it would be a better witness if you were at least less demanding, less provocative, and less insulting towards our host (less caffeine???). <br /><br />At the same time, thank you for your desire to bring people into the unity of love and faith that we share in the Catholic Church. May God bless your ardent desire! And I think you have also shared some helpful information. Thanks!<br /><br />With love in Christ,<br />PetePete Holterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01206812695011729322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-65631317241738083262015-01-24T15:28:14.003-05:002015-01-24T15:28:14.003-05:00Istanbul (modern Constantinople) has lots of cats ...Istanbul (modern Constantinople) has lots of cats also.<br /><br />:)<br /><br />Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-7502949111090872092015-01-24T15:14:39.266-05:002015-01-24T15:14:39.266-05:00The blog entry states:
In actuality, what Protest...The blog entry states:<br /><br />In actuality, what Protestants have historically rejected is Rome's misuse of the term theotokos, not the theological term itself used at the third ecumenical council [see for instance, James White, Mary- Another Redeemer? (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1998, chapter 5].James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-675999421810047472015-01-24T13:39:26.766-05:002015-01-24T13:39:26.766-05:00I just did a quick count. Out of the 80 comments l...I just did a quick count. Out of the 80 comments left under this thread, around 50 of them were posted by Guy Fawkes.<br /><br /> James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-38204361214515541142015-01-24T12:27:56.758-05:002015-01-24T12:27:56.758-05:00Footnotes from the article on Augustine:
[1] Cita...Footnotes from the article on Augustine:<br /><br />[1] Citations of the treatise are from The Works of Aurelius Augustine, vol 15, Anti-Pelagian Works (ed. M. Dods; T and T Clark, 1876). The Latin title is De Dono Perseverantiae, "On the Benefit of Perseverance."<br />[2] Ibid. 172 (chap 1). [3] Ibid. 187 (chap 21). [4] Ibid. 188 (chap 21). The references are to Rom 8:28; Eph 1:4.<br />[5] Ibid. 200-201 (chap.33). Augustine cites Rom 8:30; Rom 11:29 in relation to God's predestining the elect.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-74544526816260700512015-01-24T12:26:20.109-05:002015-01-24T12:26:20.109-05:00The Perseverance of the Saints: A History of the D...The Perseverance of the Saints: A History of the Doctrine by John Jefferson Davis<br /> Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society [JETS] 34/2 (June 1991) p. 213-228<br /><br />I. AUGUSTINE<br />The first extensive discussion of the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is found in Augustine's Treatise on the Gift of Perseverance, written in A.D. 428 or 429 in the context of the controversies with Pelagius on the issues of grace, original sin, and predestination. [1] At the very outset Augustine affirms the grace of God as the ultimate basis for the believer's final perseverance: "I assert....that the perseverance by which we persevere in Christ even to the end is the gift of God." [2] From a human perspective it is inscrutable why, given two pious men, one should be given the grace of final perseverance and the other not. From a divine perspective it must be the case that the individual who perseveres is among the predestined while the other is not. [3] The one who fails to persevere has not been called according to God's plan and chosen in Christ according to God's purpose. [4]<br /><br />God's sovereignty in election and predestination, then, is the basis for Augustine's understanding of final perseverance. The grace of God<br /><br />"which both begins a man's faith and which enables it to persevere unto the end is not given in respect of our merits, but is given according to His own most secret and at the same time most righteous, wise, and beneficent will; since those whom He predestinated, them He also called, with that calling of which it is said, 'The gifts and calling of God are without repentance.' " [5]<br /><br />It is clear for Augustine, based on his understanding of the Pauline texts in Romans, that God's elect will certainly persevere to the end and attain eternal salvation.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-73826676007581240592015-01-23T16:35:41.511-05:002015-01-23T16:35:41.511-05:00Hi Guy,
The whole issue of a whether a truly born-...Hi Guy,<br />The whole issue of a whether a truly born-again Christian can loose their salvation is a big topic. <br /><br />You know the Reformed view of that, I think.<br /><br />God is able to keep His own, and does so.<br />John 10:27-30<br /><br />"no one is able to snatch them out of My hand"<br /><br />Romans 8:28-34<br />"all who are justified are also glorified"<br />God gives perseverance to true believers.<br /><br />But there are many who say they have faith and believe and it even seems like are believers, but later turn away and it turns out they never really were true believers. <br /><br />Matthew 7:23 - Jesus said, "I never knew you"<br /><br />1 John 2:19, etc.<br /><br />2 Peter 2:22 - like a pig after washing returning to the mud. - shows the heart/nature was not changed. <br /><br />Anyway, you can research those issues here: lots of material:<br /><a href="http://www.monergism.com/topics/perseverance-saints" rel="nofollow">Perseverance of the saints</a><br /><br />http://www.monergism.com/topics/perseverance-saintsKenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-48065726302253845822015-01-23T08:33:47.096-05:002015-01-23T08:33:47.096-05:00Guy,
I have not had time to keep up with your comm...Guy,<br />I have not had time to keep up with your comments till now.<br /><br />Those who are justified are sanctified also. A truly born again person has the love of God (your expression, "Charity") in their hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us.<br /><br />Romans 5:5<br />"and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us."<br /><br />Romans 8:9 - if a person does not have the Holy Spirit, they are not a Christian.<br /><br />We of course also believe in Galatians 5:6 - <br /><br />Galatians 5:6 "faith working through love"<br /><br />We are new creatures in Christ, cleansed by the blood of Christ - the dead of Christ - and by faith alone, He imputes His righteousness to us - look at Revelation 7:9-14 - the white robes are the righteousness of Christ that He imputes / gives to us, based on the blood/death/atonement of Christ - His blood washes us white - meaning His death - how can literal blood make white? It cannot - it means by faith in His atonement (Romans 3:21-26), His perfect rightousness is imputed to us, and our sinfulness was transferred to Him on the cross. (Lev. 16; Isaiah 53:6; 10; 1 Peter 2:24; 3:18, 2 Cor. 5:21)Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-56467461819063863972015-01-22T15:32:13.246-05:002015-01-22T15:32:13.246-05:00Ken,
"How is that "my current interpret...Ken,<br /><br />"How is that "my current interpretation of Scripture" when I am agreeing with the interpretation of the early church on..." <br /><br />Because you only agree with those councils solely because they happen to agree with your interpration of Scripture; that's precisely why you limit "authority" only to the first 4 councils and reject subsequent councils - because you believe they teach contrary to your interpretation of Scripture. That's also exactly why you reject Augsburg or other non-Reformed confessions as authoritative. Sola is just a smokescreen for solo - it can't help be otherwise.<br /><br />"When we look at the content of "the rule of faith" or "the tradition" or "the preaching" or "the faith" in Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and Athanasius "<br /><br />Obviously I disagree with your conflation of material sufficiency or a high reverence for Scripture amongst the fathers as them endorsing sola scriptura. But the fathers are not germane to my questions/points I raised to you.<br /><br />"None of them have any of the particular Roman Catholic doctrines or seeds that became Roman dogmas in later centuries."<br /><br />Great - so become Eastern Orthodox. Again this is not germane to the questions/points I raised to you concerning the rule of faith, not specific Roman dogmas.<br /><br />"These doctrinal statements functioned in the early centuries to teach and disciple new converts, even though they didn't have all the 27 books in one place. But because all of those doctrines were Biblical and were taught orally by the apostles while the scriptures were being written, the idea of the apostolic rule of faith is not contradictory to Sola Scriptura"<br /><br />Sola Scriptura proposes Scripture is the sole infallible authority and that everything necessary for salvation is perspicuous and may be deduced from it. You are telling me that a rule of faith that has infallible preaching/practice (i.e. Tradition) alongside infallible Scripture is not contradictory to Sola Scriptura. That would mean there are 2 infallible authorities, not one, which is contradictory to SS. As White (and Swan) said, SS cannot be operative during apostolic times by definition. You are also apparently telling me that an incomplete canon is not necessary for SS to function which seems incoherent - how is one able to determine "all of those doctrines were biblical" if the canon is incomplete and the hermeneutic of "Scripture interpreting Scripture" is necessary to determine whether a doctrine is indeed "biblical" or not?Cletus Van Dammehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13749634619890462132noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-56822433211032308092015-01-22T12:59:28.622-05:002015-01-22T12:59:28.622-05:00Even the Image of God was erased from you . . .
...<i>Even the Image of God was erased from you . . . </i><br /><br />Protestant theology does not teach that.<br /><br />You are mis-informed.<br /><br />The image of God is not erased or destroyed, rather, damaged in every part of mind, soul, spirit, emotions, will, conscience. Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-78209128094464123492015-01-22T12:34:22.382-05:002015-01-22T12:34:22.382-05:00So, "Irenaeus, or Tertullian or Origen or Ath...<i>So, "Irenaeus, or Tertullian or Origen or Athanasius," had nothing to say on prayers for the dead, Mary or the Eucharist, eh Ken?</i><br /><br />Not in the sections that explicate "the rule of faith". They affirmed the virgin conception/birth of Jesus, but not perpetual virginity. Real presense of the Eucharist is not physical or transubstantiation, but even the simple Eucharist or Lord's supper is not mentioned in the "rule of faith". don't know about prayers for the dead. Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-72078981866265500592015-01-22T10:46:10.295-05:002015-01-22T10:46:10.295-05:003 By faith we understand that the worlds were prep...3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.<br /><br />Hebrews 11:3<br /><br />Creation ex nihilo<br /><br />Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-31306415101524922242015-01-22T10:42:49.873-05:002015-01-22T10:42:49.873-05:00I don't know ken, you tell me about the wicked...<i>I don't know ken, you tell me about the wicked sons of Eli, the apostasy of Israel in the desert, David's sin, Kaiphas, Judas, etc. etc.</i><br /><br />The parallel of the Roman priesthood/succession of bishops with OT Israel breaks down, because there was no infallible interpretative authority in OT, only Scriptures and fallible men and Jesus rebuked them for wrong teaching and false doctrine - Matthew 16:12; Matthew 15:1-20; Mark 7:1-23<br /><br /><i>Or what about Calvin instituting a reign of terror in Geneva, Luther getting the peasants butchered, Henry VIII murdering his wives, Zwingli getting laymen to eats meat while he abstained, Jimmy Swaggart and worst of all, you sir.</i><br /><br />I am worst of all ? Wow. Tell me how?<br /><br />I have zero respect for Henry VIII - admittedly, he was a total jerk and the spiritual Reformation in England did not take place through him.<br /><br />Calvin - the RCs were going to execute Servetus also - he inherited that culture from the RCs.<br /><br />same thing with Luther on the peasants revolt. <br /><br />Swaggart is not in the same category. He is a nut.<br /><br />Zwingli - I dont know how that relates. <br /><br />When the Zurich city council drowned Felix Manz, that is better parallel. I agree with Manz - he rebaptized himself the proper way, as a believer first, not an infant who cannot understand or repent or believe. That excecution of him was unjust and evil. <br /><br />Anyway, the parallel doesn't work, or your "tu quoque" doesn't work because we don't claim any kind of succession of infallible coucil of presbyters down through history.<br /><br />We can pick the good from Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and reject the areas where they went wrong or overboard, etc. We can test all things by Scripture.<br /><br />Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-47146002219852058612015-01-22T10:26:38.791-05:002015-01-22T10:26:38.791-05:00After a litany of articles of the Creed, you said,...<i>After a litany of articles of the Creed, you said,<br />"None of them have any of the particular Roman Catholic doctrines or seeds that became Roman dogmas in later centuries."<br /><br />No? What about calling God the CREATOR? That is a major Catholic distinctive not found in your version of the OT. <br />(Pssssst, Ken! The Genesis account makes God out to be a maker, not a Craetor Ex Nihilo. For that doctrine, you need to go to Maccabees.)</i><br /><br />Guy,<br />What I meant was that none of the rule of faith in the early church (Irenaeus, Tertullian, Athanasius, Nicean Creed, etc.) are the particular Roman Catholic ones that Prostestants/Evangelicals disagree with and are still protesting against.<br /><br />God as creator ex nihilo is evident in Genesis and Hebrews 11:3; and we Evangelical Protestants agree with that.<br /><br />You cannot find Irenaeus, or Tertullian or Origen or Athanasius, when they list the doctrines in the rule of faith (see the references above) adding anything like a Pope or prayers to Mary or IC of Mary or BA of Mary or indulgences or Purgatory or treasury of merit or Transubstantiation in those explications of what the rule of faith is. <br /><br />Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-27635073897460091022015-01-22T08:32:37.486-05:002015-01-22T08:32:37.486-05:00Rules of faith in the early church:
Irenaeus - Ag...Rules of faith in the early church:<br /><br />Irenaeus - Against Heresies 1:10:1 to 1:11:1<br /><br />1:22:1<br /><br />3:4:2<br /><br />Tertullian<br />Prescription Against Heretics, 13:1-6<br /><br />Against Praxeas, 2:1-2<br /><br />Origen<br />On First Principles, 1. preface. 2-8<br /><br />Athanasius<br />to Serapion 1:28-29<br />Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-80192388304901976672015-01-22T08:27:15.150-05:002015-01-22T08:27:15.150-05:00Of course we believe 1 Tim. 4:14 and 2 Timothy 1:6...Of course we believe 1 Tim. 4:14 and 2 Timothy 1:6-7 the council of elders/presbytery bestowed a charisma (spiritual gift/ grace gift) onto Timothy; and in the 2 Tim. passage it was Paul.<br /><br />Do these passages teach that all future presbyters/bishops have that same ability that the apostle had in those passages?<br /><br />Is the gift a spiritual gift of teaching, or is it the legitimate office of a bishop (as Roman Catholicism claims)? <br /><br />where is the meaning of infallibility of interpretation promised to be passed down by the laying on of hands down through history?<br /><br />What about the anti-popes in history ?<br /><br />What about the Avignon Papacy?Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-68791937354036393192015-01-22T07:53:32.516-05:002015-01-22T07:53:32.516-05:00Cletus Van Damme wrote:
So why assume that pattern...Cletus Van Damme wrote:<br /><i>So why assume that pattern and the rule of faith suddenly changed and shifted in essence in terms of transmission and operation when the last inspired word was penned – would it not be more reasonable to assume the pattern continued by default (especially when the church was already operating for decades) unless there was strong evidence to the contrary? And given your rule of faith, such evidence would have to exist in the writings/Scripture themselves correct?</i><br /><br />When we look at the content of "the rule of faith" or "the tradition" or "the preaching" or "the faith" in Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and Athanasius - when they tell us what it consists of - it is always a Trinitiarian doctrinal statement that later became creedal statements similar to the Apostles Creed, the Nicean-Constantinopolatian Creed, developed into the Athanasian Creed, etc. <br /><br />God the Father and creator (against Gnosticism and Docetism)<br />Jesus the Son, the eternal Word<br />became flesh<br />born of virgin Mary<br />suffered, died, buried, rose from the dead<br />the Holy Spirit<br /><br />eternal life for those that believe, hell for those who reject<br /><br />second coming, judgement<br />etc.<br /><br />None of them have any of the particular Roman Catholic doctrines or seeds that became Roman dogmas in later centuries.<br /><br />These doctrinal statements functioned in the early centuries to teach and disciple new converts, even though they didn't have all the 27 books in one place. But because all of those doctrines were Biblical and were taught orally by the apostles while the scriptures were being written, the idea of the apostolic rule of faith is not contradictory to Sola Scriptura, since every point of the Trinitarian Creeds is rooted in Biblical truth.<br />Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-51175767922365154462015-01-22T07:50:34.494-05:002015-01-22T07:50:34.494-05:00Sneaky Mr. Fawkes said:
"But remember, the Ap...Sneaky Mr. Fawkes said:<br />"But remember, the Apostles were given two things; a power and authority. The power to forgive sins and offer sacrifice and the authority to rule, shepherd,teach, oversee, bind and loose doctrine."<br /><br />Sneaky because of the unbiblical insertion that the apostles were given the power to "offer sacrifice". Spare me.<br />Under no circumstances whatsoever were the apostles ever given the power to offer any sort of sacrifice in the midst of an imaginary sacerdotal priesthood the Bible does not even hint at. Not only does the Text never mention such an office in the list of church offices (1 Cor 12:28-29 & Eph 4:11-12), but In an epistle replete with sacrificial language, never once does the book of Hebrews equate the notion of sacrifice with the eucharist, which is where it OUGHT to be mentioned if Catholicism were true.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05420427039737373007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-86145064255376661972015-01-21T23:46:04.538-05:002015-01-21T23:46:04.538-05:00Cletus said:
"The CCC also identifies the roc...Cletus said:<br />"The CCC also identifies the rock in multiple senses. It's a false dichotomy to assume it only can have one sense (which is why fathers appeal to multiple senses as well)."<br /><br />The real point of the issue, which you omit to say, is that the allegedly infallible Vatican 1, (after incorrectly identifying Peter as the pillar of the church, contrary to Scripture which says the CHURCH is the pillar), went on to dictate a PRIMARY sense of Matt 16, which makes adhering to "multiple senses" pointless. Why? Because if one does not submit to their PRIMARY meaning that Peter was the rock on which the church was to be built, non-Catholics must take those secondary "multiple senses" with them into hell, because salvation has now been forfeited. We read that...<br /><br />"the pastors and the faithful of whatever rite and dignity, both individually and collectively, are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in matters which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the whole world, in such a way that once the unity of communion and the profession of the same Faith has been preserved with the Roman Pontiff, there is one flock of the Church of Christ under one supreme shepherd.<br />This is the teaching of the Catholic truth from which no one can depart without loss of faith and salvation."<br /><br />These sentiments are in unison with Boniface VIII, in his Bull, "Unam Sanctam", which demands that it is, "altogether necessary for every human creature to subject to the Roman Pontiff."<br /><br />However, the current catechism would seem to refute all of these notions when they say:<br /><br />"It is right and just to entrust ourselves wholly to God and to believe absolutely what He says. It would be futile and false to place such faith in a creature" (#150).<br /><br />Count on it then: Jesus Christ did not break through the curtain of this world to suffer a bloody and ignominious death just so that we be subservient to a man wearing a religious costume in Rome, Italy. Hence, like a phony $2.00 bill, Catholicism must be branded as counterfeit Christianity.<br />Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05420427039737373007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-75042233168939772362015-01-21T23:09:30.939-05:002015-01-21T23:09:30.939-05:00All the bluster over Mr. Webster's exit becaus...All the bluster over Mr. Webster's exit because of a disagreement, fails to recall that God<br /> ALLOWED there to be a rift between Paul & Barnabus; a disagreement so great that they had to SEPARATE one from the other (Acts 15:39). Have you ever stopped to consider that the Lord ordained two perfectly capable servants to (gasp!) disagree.... so that they would go in two opposite directions to more widely spread the good news and minister effectively in different locations? He thus accomplishes a greater objective than their being in agreement.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05420427039737373007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-7451249331369737502015-01-21T16:18:42.996-05:002015-01-21T16:18:42.996-05:00Ken,
"Regarding The Jerusalem Council in Act...Ken,<br /><br />"Regarding The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, since it also itself is written down in Scripture, it has a different quality than the historical ecumenical councils."<br /><br />Now this is interesting. James keeps on asserting Devin is assuming what he needs to prove, and yet what proof do we have that the model/precedent set by the Jerusalem council was a one-off thing that would no longer be followed once the final word of Scripture was penned? Granting sola scriptura, I would think that would have to be pretty explicitly stated in Scripture to be consistent.<br /><br />Similarly, you and James seem to agree apostolic preaching/practice of the faith preceded inscripturation. So at a minimum it seems Tradition and inscripturation were operating in parallel until the last sentence of the last book was written correct? So why assume that pattern and the rule of faith suddenly changed and shifted in essence in terms of transmission and operation when the last inspired word was penned – would it not be more reasonable to assume the pattern continued by default (especially when the church was already operating for decades) unless there was strong evidence to the contrary? And given your rule of faith, such evidence would have to exist in the writings/Scripture themselves correct? But if your rule of faith was not operating during inscripturation (as James notes), I fail to see how that can even be possible, let alone probable since any appeal to support SS would violate the original meaning/intent of the words.<br /><br /><br />"The first four Ecumenical Councils in church history - Nicea (325 AD), Constantinople (381 AD), Ephesus (431 AD), and Chalcedon (451 AD) are authoritative in that they properly interpret the infallible Scriptures"<br /><br />Yep, sola reduces to solo scriptura. Councils/confessions are only authoritative insofar as they conform to my current interpretation of Scripture.Cletus Van Dammehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13749634619890462132noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-60196120875268369472015-01-21T16:09:22.254-05:002015-01-21T16:09:22.254-05:00Laying on of hands and appointing bishops means no...Laying on of hands and appointing bishops means nothing if the doctrine is wrong. Emptry rituals and dead religion; Romanism. <br /><br />The succession of Romanism was broken because of the ugliness of all these false doctrines - especially adding Purgatory and Indulgences (600 AD and beyond)<br /><br />Transubstantiation - 800s - 1215<br /><br />1302 - Unam Sanctum - Boniface VIII adding to Scripture that in order to be saved every human creature must be in submission to the Pontif of Rome. Ha!<br /><br />Trent - 1545-1563 - gutting the gospel of its heart.<br /><br />IC of Mary - 1854<br /><br />Pope, Infall.- 1870<br /><br />BA of Mary - 1950<br /><br />The RC is a false church and no matter of laying on of hands of succession of bishops makes it a true church, since people are fallible and they added false doctrines into the deposit, so that that RC doctrinal statement (the CCC) is false.<br /><br />Unity around heresies is not Biblical unity.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.com