Augustine's "On The Unity of the Church" reposted

Granted, I have not had time to post here much in recent years, but here is a repost of an article, because I noticed the link has changed over at William Webster's excellent web-site.

Augustine's "On the Unity of the Church" 

https://christiantruth.com/articles/articles-roman-catholicism/deunitateintroduction/

I am reposting this because the link changed.  Everyone in recent years is updating their web-sites, and with those new codes, etc. comes new links.

Here is my older article with the old links.

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2014/12/augustines-unity-of-church-finally.html

At William Webster's web-site, I discovered the full text of Augustine's "On The Unity of the Church" vs. the Donatists.   For the first time in history, the full text has been translated into English. (Amazing that it took so long !! Centuries!) I look forward to reading this, studying it, and possibly writing blog articles on this in the future.


New Link:

Some choice selections from Webster's Introduction:

Augustine

Introduction:  “The question has been proposed: Is the Church of Christ among the Catholics or among the Donatists? This needs to be determined from specific and clear citations in Holy Scripture. First, evidence is brought forth from the Old Testament and then from the New Testament.”  (Augustine, Introduction, On the Unity of the Church. My emphasis)

. . . 

"But, as I had begun to say, let us not listen to “you say this, I say that” but let us listen to “the Lord says this.” Certainly, there are the Lord’s books, on whose authority we both agree, to which we concede, and which we serve; there we seek the Church, there we argue our case" (Chapter 5). (My emphasis)

Webster says that Augustine basically says, 

“Since both parties adhere to the truth of Scripture and believe them to be the word of God, it is scripture which should be the final arbiter.”

Augustine writes, “just as this doesn't need an interpreter” several times in his appeal to the Donatists.  Augustine believed that theses Scriptures were clear and perspicuous, and did not need an infallible interpreter to settle the dispute.  

In one of his sermons Augustine gives this exegesis of the rock of Matthew 16:

"Remember, in this man Peter, the rock. He’s the one, you see, who on being questioned by the Lord about who the disciples said he was, replied, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On hearing this, Jesus said to him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you’...‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15–19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ.    Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer"

(John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327).

This treatise is of great interest historically because of what Augustine does not say constitutes unity. These words by Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger, the most renowned Roman Catholic historian of the 19th century, who taught church history for 47 years, are very telling:

St. Augustine has written more on the Church, its unity and authority, than all the other Fathers put together. Yet, from all his numerous works, filling ten folios, only one sentence, in one letter, can be quoted, where he says that the principality of the Apostolic Chair has always been in Rome—which could, of course, be said then with equal truth of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. Any reader of his Pastoral Letter to the separated Donatists on the Unity of the Church, must find it inexplicable...that in these seventy–five chapters there is not a single word on the necessity of communion with Rome as the centre of unity. He urges all sorts of arguments to show that the Donatists are bound to return to the Church, but of the Papal Chair, as one of them, he says not a word (Janus (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger), The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1869), pp. 70-74).

Augustine says, 'Whoever dissents from Holy Scripture concerning the head is not in the Church' (Paragraph 7). (my emphasis)

He repeats this passage:

But, as I had begun to say, let us not listen to “you say this, I say that” but let us listen to “the Lord says this.” Certainly, there are the Lord’s books, on whose authority we both agree, to which we concede, and which we serve; there we seek the Church, there we argue our case (Augustine, On the Unity of the Church, Chapter 5).

"I do not wish the holy Church to be founded on human evidence, but on divine oracles" (Augustine, ibid., Chapter 6). (My emphasis)

"All such things then removed, let them demonstrate their Church, if they can, not in the speeches and murmurs of African, not in the councils of their bishops, not in the epistles of whatever debates, not in false signs and prodigies, since we are prepared and cautioned against them by the word of the Lord, but in the precept of the law, in the predictions of the prophets, in the songs of the psalms, in the utterances of the one shepherd himself, in the preaching of the evangelists, that is in all the canonical authority of the holy books, and not such that they might gather and cite things that are spoken obscurely or ambiguously or metaphorically which anyone might interpret according to his own opinion as he wishes. Such things cannot be properly understood and explained unless first those things that are said most openly are held with a strong faith (Chapter 47).

Why Stay Protestant? by Matthew Schultz

https://medium.com/@MatthewSchultz/why-stay-protestant-435b5e1006a0

A very good overview of the issues that touches on other areas in life (social, arts, music, aesthetics, etc.) that apologists and theologians usually don't mention in this whole issue of Roman Catholicism vs. Protestantism.

Dr. White's recent debate on Marian Dogmas with Peter Williams

with link to an older debate with Gerry Matatics on same issue.

https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2017/07/28/debates-on-the-marian-dogmas/

Part 1a Review at Amazon.com, of Rod Bennett's book, "Four Witnesses", has disappeared! (with Update, it has not disappeared)

I noticed that my "Initial Review" of Rod Bennett's book, Four Witnesses, that I put up at Amazon.com and linked to in this article, is no longer there.  It is actually "part 1a" of my article.

Update: (April 18, 2017)
see Rob's comment in the com-box:

Ken, I found it.
The Amazon grading system wants to show Verified purchases only. If you click on the filter for verified purchases, it will alternate to "All Reviewers. Then your review does show.

see my comment also in the combox.  I will leave this up here. and adjust the title

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2014/01/my-initial-review-of-rod-bennetts-book.html

Fortunately, I kept a copy on my computer, and so I have published it here at my other blog, "Apologetics and Agape".

https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2017/04/17/review-of-rod-bennetts-book/

Debate Tonight: Dr. James White vs. Trent Horn of Catholic Answers

Debate:  "Can Christians Loose Their Salvation?"
Dr. James R. White vs. Trent Horn of Catholic Answers

In celebration of the 500th Year of the Reformation this year:

Debate site:
http://sovereignevent.com/debate17/

Live streaming of the debate tonight:

http://www.g3conference.com/

It is a Pre-Conference Debate before the G3 Conference starts.

Video of General issues of the Reformation and G3 Conference:

Has the Roman Catholic Church changed it's tune?

https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/09/26/has-the-roman-catholic-church-changed-its-tune/

Dr. White responds to William Lane Craig's perspective on Roman Catholicism and the "Mere Christianity" paradigm

I wish I had time to write up an article on this, but I just don't have the time.

https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/08/19/dr-white-responds-to-william-lane-craigs-perspective-on-roman-catholicism-and-the-mere-christianity-paradigm/

The appearance of idolatry and treating Mary as a mediator

1 Timothy 2:5
Revelation 19:10; 22:8-9

 Deuteronomy 18:11 

1 Samuel 28:1-25

1 Chronicles 10:13-14

Sproul and MacArthur on Roman Catholicism, praying to Mary, Trent and justification by faith alone, and the Mass

Everything needed was written down; and the promises to the apostles imply this; and the Rule of Faith in the early church also shows this

In order to understand all of this post, it is important to read the two links at Apologetics and Agape,


1.  The Defining Question on Sola Scriptura and Tradition
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/05/25/the-defining-question/

2.  The Rule of Faith in the Early Church
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/05/24/the-rule-of-faith-in-the-early-church/


 and also view and listen to the debate on Sola Scriptura between Dr. James White and Mitch Pacwa.

In response to my article on Rod Bennett's recent appearance on Marcus Grodi's The Coming Home Network,
a Roman Catholic who goes by Arvinger, wrote:  (see more details leading up to this in the combox)

I think you have missed my point, Ken - I did not argue that the doctrine of Trinity is not explicitly taught in Scripture and we rely on authority of the Council, I agree with you that it is based on sound exegesis of Scripture. Scripture explicitly teaches deity of the Father, deity of the Son and deity of the Spirit, there is no question about it. However, specific Christological teachings like two wills of Christ, condemnation of monoenergism and condemnation of monotheletism byt Third Constantinople are not provable from Scripture alone (especially in the case of monoenergism, which, as I said, was deliberately vaguely defined to provide a compromise between Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians), thus these teachings are relying on authority of the Council.

This (above) was his response to my first response (below in blue) about the implication of Scripture passages that imply everything we need will be written down:

I wrote:

In the debate linked to below, from around the 1 hour mark to 1 hour and 8 minutes, Dr. White's questions to Mitch Pacwa answer your first objection. 
When I have time I will flesh it out more. the fact that the RCC has never dogmatically declared any words of the apostles that are not in Scripture shows that all that we needed was written down. (which Pacwa admitted was true - that there are no apostolic oral traditions that have been dogmatically defined as words of the apostles) 
What Pacwa is trying to say is that centuries later interpretations are "traditions" that are developed as new issues and questions are raised, and he tries to carefully parallel those RC doctrines and dogmas with the doctrine of the Trinity. But Pacwa admitted that the doctrine of the Trinity is based on sound exegesis of Scripture. 

My main point was to point Avinger to the debate between Dr. White and Mitch Pacwa and the question that Dr. White posed to Mitch Pacwa, and Pacwa's answer that he admitted that the RCC has not infallibly defined any extra-biblical statement as coming from the apostles, which is not already written down in Scripture.  Arvinger mostly went to the last part of my response, about the development of doctrine and the doctrine of the Trinity.  

I have decided to embed the debate between Dr. White and Mitch Pacwa again here.  




My response to Arvinger's second response, which is now edited and expanded upon.  See the combox for my original answer.

I confess I don't know much about "mono-energism" - I need to study that. 

But I know about Mono-theletism (the heresy that Jesus has only one will). That seems easy, along with the 2 persons of Christ, that He had two wills, because He surrendered and submitted His human will in the Garden when He prayed, "Not My will, but Thy will be done" (Luke 22:42) That is clear enough in Scripture, in my opinion. 

Monotheletism was an attempt to win the Monophysites to the Chalcedonian Creed of 451 AD.

I think that the Byzantine Emperors Justinian (527-565 AD) and Heraclius (Emperor 610 to 641 AD) (and probably others between them) were too harsh against the Copts, Monophysites, Jacobite-Syrians and Armenians, (those groups that disagreed with the Chalcedonian Creed of 451 AD), and that created a bitterness among those groups with the unfortunate result that they at first welcomed the Arab Muslims when they invaded the Byzantine Empire and fought the Chalcedonian Creed Byzantine troops quartered there, but the people were mostly Monophysite. when Islam conquered in 636 AD onward.

That is one of the big mistakes of the early church - the complete unity between religion and politics and military might.

My main point was about those verses that seem to imply that everything the church needs for ministry will be written down.  See the first article linked below for the Scripture passages.  

As to your very first point that you make about the issue of questioning that everything we need for ministry, doctrine, etc. was written down, and those verses I supplied seem to imply that. That point is strengthened when we understand the promise to the disciples in John 14 and 16 - "the Spirit will lead you into all the truth" and "the Spirit will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you", etc. 

Notice the promise is to the disciples/ apostles.  This is not a general promise of guidance for the church for the rest of history, although that is certainly an application of the promise, but the specific promise here is to give the disciples/apostles the rest of revelation ("all the truth", "all things", John 16:12 - "I have many more things to tell you, but you cannot bear them now", etc.).  This promise was extended to the apostle Paul later, and would include the other writers of NT books who were writing under apostolic authority.  Mark writing for Peter; Luke interviewing the other apostles and Mary and other eyewitnesses, and under apostolic authority as the fellow-missionary on Paul's team; James and Jude as half-brothers of Jesus, and James is specifically called an apostle in Galatians 1:19 and 1 Corinthians 15:7, and who saw Jesus in His resurrection body.  The book of Hebrews, though Luke and Silas and Apollos have also been suggested, seems to have been written by Barnabas, who is also called an apostle in Acts 14:4 and 14:14.   Tertullian thought Barnabas wrote Hebrews.  (On Modesty, 20)   The other NT books were all written by apostles themselves, John, Matthew, Peter, and Paul.  

These 2 articles linked to below, at my other blog, "Apologetics and Agape", flesh that out more, as we see that the RCC has never infallibly defined any words as coming from the apostles that is not already in Scripture (Dr. White's question to Mitch Pacwa in the debate on Sola Scriptura, see in first link), and the rule of faith that functioned in the early church was a doctrinal statement, organized around the 3 persons of the Trinity, per Matthew 28:19, and whenever it is fleshed out and explicated in the early church (see in second article) it is always a doctrinal creed in content that is all Biblical truth. There is nothing in these lists of "the rule of faith" or "the tradition of the apostles" that is a particular doctrine or seed of a later Roman Catholic particular doctrine that Protestantism disagrees with. The context, especially in Irenaeus and Tertullian is against Gnosticism, which Protestantism also agrees that Gnosticism is heresy and wrong.  The context of Athanasius is mostly against Arians (in his other writings, and where he writes, "Scripture is fully sufficient" (Against the Gentiles 1:3; and de Synodis 6), etc. see in this previous article)  and the Tropici (who denied the Deity of the Holy Spirit), which Protestantism agrees with the early fathers that these were heresies and unBiblical. These early fathers and writers may have mentioned other things in other contexts (like the "Mary as the New Eve" statements), but those peculiar pious beliefs are not part of the rule of the faith, when it is explicated. 

Things like Ignatius and the Didache and others using the word Eucharist, or the word "cath- holic" are not bad in themselves in their original context.  The problem is that Roman Catholicism takes centuries later meanings of these terms and reads them back into the first or second century usage of them.   

The Defining Question on Sola Scriptura and Tradition
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/05/25/the-defining-question/

The Rule of Faith in the Early Church
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/05/24/the-rule-of-faith-in-the-early-church/

Addendum:
Also, Irenaeus' wrote that it was the Gnostics who pointed to a living voice and living oral tradition outside of Scripture, and this is what Roman Catholics attempt to do by pointing back to 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and John 20:30 and 21:25 - and then reading centuries later doctrines, practices, or "seeds" of those concepts back into those verses - this is what the Gnostics were doing in Irenaeus' day, in order to try and establish an authority from the apostles outside of written Scripture.  See Against Heresies 1:8:1

Such, then, is their [Gnostics] system, which neither the prophets announced, nor the Lord taught, nor the apostles delivered, but of which they boast that beyond all others they have a perfect knowledge. They gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures . . . 

and 3:2:1.  

When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce ("living voice") . . .   

This is exactly what Roman Catholics do all the time when attacking Sola Scriptura.

Very interesting article on the real presence in the Eucharist in the early church

"This article will examine the writings of Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian of Carthage, Irenaeus of Lyons, Justin Martyr, Ignatius, and a contribution from Origen in order to show that the ancient church never believed, taught or even conceived any doctrine like the real presence dogma."  Brian Culliton, at his "onefold" wordpress blog

https://onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/

Timothy Kauffman on James 2:14-26

 Timothy Kauffman on James 2, justification, works

Please read the whole article.  Kauffman does a great job of demonstrating the whole book of James and it's relationship to the parable of the soils that Jesus told in the synoptic gospels.  (Matthew 13, Mark 4, Luke 8)  

These 2 paragraphs are especially good, as he points out that dikaow (δικαοω, to justify), can have different meanings according to context.  Matthew 11:19, Luke 7:35, Romans 3:4, and 1 Timothy 3:16 mean "to vindicate", "to prove", "to demonstrate to be true", "to prove right", "to show".  This is what James 2:14-26 means, " a man is proved to be justified by faith, by works" or "a man demonstrates he is justified by faith, by works.  (James 2:21, 2:24)

"We emphasize this connection between the saying and the doing, first because this is so plainly, explicitly and emphatically James’ emphasis in the epistle; and second because there is in biblical parlance a “justification” that has nothing to do with the ground of a man’s acquittal in a legal sense, but has to do with consistency between what a person says and what he does. In this sense, a man is justified when what he says is found to be true. Paul used it in this sense when he wrote that God will be shown to be faithful to His promise: “That Thou mightest be justified in thy sayings” (Romans 3:4). Jesus used it in this sense when He said “Wisdom is justified of her children” in response to His critics (Matthew 11:18-19; c.f. Luke 7:33-35). When Jesus was “justified in the Spirit” (1 Timothy 3:16), it means that His claims were proven true."

"This is not the justification Paul speaks of when he says we are “justified by faith” or “justified by His blood” or “justified by Christ” (Romans 5:1,9; Galatians 2:17). Rather, it is a justification that occurs when a man claims to be religious, and his works show that he truly is. It is a justification that occurs when a man says he has wisdom, and the fruits show that he is truly wise. It is the justification that occurs when a man says he has faith, and he loves his neighbor, showing that his profession of faith is genuine. James could as well teach—and we know it is true—that a man is not proven to be wise by saying he has wisdom, and a man is not proven to be religious by saying he is religious. Nor is a man proven to believe by saying he has faith. He is justified “in his sayings” when there are fruits to show for wisdom, when fruits show that he is truly religious, and when a profession of faith is proven through trial. That this is James’ use of justification is evident from the two examples he gives from Scripture—Abraham and Rahab. In both cases, faith was tested and proven. "  Timothy Kauffman

The Dividing Line earlier today

Dr. James R. White discusses 4 different issues:
1. the Popes and the change of Roman Catholic Theology since Vatican 2; (Francis is different than Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) But why didn't Benedict XVI (Ratzinger) say any of this while he was Pope? 

2. Rachel Held Evans and her liberalism and support for Trans-genderism;

3. a troubling article at Desiring God (by Nick Roen) about homosexuality and same sex desires (I also had trouble with this article when I read it; Dr. White nails the problems); (parts of the article by Roen are right; and it is no way like the Rachel Held Evans article; but it is troubling nonetheless. It needs to be re-written and clarified.)

4. the issue of "Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God" with Joseph Cumming and Nabeel Qureshi on Unbelievable Radio Program. 

Addendum:
From the article about Pope Benedict XVI, that Dr. White referenced:

Pope Benedict reminds us of the formerly indispensable Catholic conviction of the importance of the salvation of souls:“The missionaries of the 16th century were convinced that the unbaptized person is lost forever. After the [Second Vatican] Council, this conviction was definitely abandoned. The result was a two-sided, deep crisis. Without this attentiveness to the salvation, the faith loses its foundation.”He also speaks of a “profound evolution of dogma” with respect to the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church. This purported change has led, in the Pope’s eyes, to a loss of the missionary zeal in the Church — “any motivation for a future missionary commitment was removed.”Pope Benedict asks this piercing question: “Why you should try to convince the people to accept the Christian faith when they can be saved even without it?” As to the other consequences of this new attitude in the Church, the Catholics themselves, in Benedict’s eyes, have become less attached to their faith: If there are those who can save their souls with other means, “why should the Christian be bound to the necessity of the Christian faith and its morality?” asks the Pope Emeritus. And he concludes: “But if faith and salvation are not any more interdependent, even faith becomes less motivating.”Benedict also refutes both the idea of the “anonymous Christian” as developed by Karl Rahner, as well as the indifferentist idea that all religions are equally valuable and helpful to attain eternal life.He says: “Even less acceptable is the solution proposed by the pluralistic theories of religion, for which all religions, each in its own way, would be ways of salvation and, in this sense, must be considered equivalent in their effects.”

Link to Rachel Held Evans article.

Link to the Desiring God by Nick Roen article that has many of us troubled.

In the section on Joseph Cumming vs. Nabeel Qureshi:
Who is Joseph Cumming?   (former missionary in North Africa and one of the founders of the Evangelical Yale Reconciliation Movement)  

"the church wrote the Bible" claim of Roman Catholicism

https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2015/06/17/the-church-wrote-the-bible-claim-of-roman-catholicism/

13 Things you didn't know about the Papacy

13 Things you didn't know about the Papacy over at Triablogue:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2015/05/13-things-you-didnt-know-about-papacy.html

https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2015/05/29/13-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-papacy/

John Bugay over at Triablogue, has an excellent summary here of the Papacy issues.  

Because of space, and the purpose to keep to a one page sheet evangelistic tract, it may be hard to include these other issues:

I would add:  (this is not a criticism of John's article, just some other points that came to mind after I read through his summary.)

14.   that Peter himself calls himself "fellow-elder" in 1 Peter 5:1. no heirachy of mono-episcopate or papacy idea.

15.  Also, if Peter had a successor, a bishop of Rome as infallible successor, he would have said, "listen to him, who will be able to remind you of these things (spiritual truths)" or "he is the living voice, who will be able to stir up your sincere minds", etc. in 2 Peter 1:12-18; but instead, Peter points them to his letter/scripture - 3:1 - this is the second letter by which I am writing to you in order to stir up your sincere minds" - same idea in 2 Peter 1:12-18 - knowing that he is about to die, he is diligent to put forth effort to stir up their sincere minds - (diligent by writing the letter from prison before his death.)

16.  I would distinquish between the RC idea of infallible succession of person and office (bishop/ mono-episcopate) to Peter vs. the biblical idea of appointing qualified elders - as in Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5 and 1 Timothy 3.  ( maybe need more details on # 5 - the quote by Oscar Cullman about the principle of succession. Does Cullman explain the difference between the Roman Catholic claim of infallible apostolic succession in the successors of Peter and other church bishops  vs. the Biblical idea of appointing qualified elders in each local church? - Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5; I Timothy 3:1 ff, ?)

17.  Some kind of an explanation of "papa" (father) and acknowledge 1 Cor. 4:15-17 and 1 Timothy 1:2 as something that existed - calling someone a spiritual father - one who led a person to Christ and /or taught them the gospel and discipled them in the Scriptures as a young Christian, etc. And that existed in the early church in all the churches as all ministers/elders/ later development into "priest" were considered and called "papa"/father (spiritual father), so bishops and elders of other areas were called "papa", such as Cyprian in Carthage and Athanasius in Alexandria - even today, the leader of the Coptic Church in Egypt is called "Pope". The point is, "Pope" was never an exclusive term only for the bishop of Rome, but was used for all ministers in all churches. (until centuries later)

Thorough video refutation of Purgatory by Keith Thompson

https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2015/05/25/purgatory-refuted/

Romans 3:21-26 answers Islam, Secularism, and Roman Catholicism

Dr. John Piper applies Romans 3:21-26 to the secular mindset and to the Muslim mindset.  

To be more clear, Dr. Piper does not address Roman Catholicism.  I am making that application, since Roman Catholicism also rejects penal substitutionary atonement.  So, listen to the sermon and see how this passage also shows Roman Catholicism wrong.

Commentors must demonstrate they listened to the whole sermon.  This requires a lot of meditation on the text and deep thinking on the issues that Dr. Piper brought up; and furthermore, why Roman Catholicism rejects penal substitutionary atonement.

Addendum:
Dr. Piper mentions the wall of the 99 names of Allah that he was shown in Dubai and his translator translated one of the names as "capricious".  I think it may be "Al Jabbar", الجبار - from Jabr, جبر , which is the concept of fatalism and destiny.  Al Jabbar means "the irresistable one, the enforcer, the compeller", many times translated more softly to "The Almighty".  Algebra الجبر , Al -Jabr also is from this root.  The idea is, if you plug in the right number, you always get a certain result.  If you do good works for Allah, He rewards you"; but even that is, "Inshallah", "if God wills".  Even that is no guarantee, but Allah is more like an impersonal mathematical formula, but He can explode in anger on you any time He wants.   Combined with other attributes of deception and no standard of who He will forgive, the capriciousness and arbitrariness comes out in daily life in the Muslim world.  Many Muslims have said to me, "we have no standard, no rules; everyone breaks the rules; if you don't get caught, it is considered a high praise."  "Allah knows best"; "what can we do?  everything is decided beforehand by Allah", etc.  I have emailed Desiring God wanting to know which one of the Arabic words that was, for they usually don't translate any of them that way into English, even though  Allah's capriciousness is a practical outworking of Allah's sovereignty and His arbitrary and caprious nature of just forgiving who He wants to and sending to hell who He wants to.  The Christian God (The Holy Trinity) is so different, by giving Himself (the Son voluntarily coming, being incarnated, and voluntarily going to the cross to take our punishment), provides the righteousness/justice at the cross for sin, satisfies God's anger and justice against sin, and provides love for sinners who don't deserve grace. Romans 5:8.  The God of the Bible is both Justice and Love.  The cross and penal substitutionary atonement is the answer to the insecurity and lack of peace and lack of assurance in Islam's caprious Allah.
Here is an article that shows the capricious and deceptive nature of Allah in Islam's texts, the Qur'an and the Hadith and other sources.  See at the bottom of that article also, for more links to other articles on Allah's deceptive nature.  "Allah is the very best deceiver" - الله خیر المکارین Surah 3:54; 8:30: 10:21-22

See also, Allah, the greatest deceiver of them all. 

It is so wonderful that we have the true God, who cannot lie (Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18) and cannot sin (1 John 1:5; James 1:13-14; Habakkuk 1:13).  The true God cannot do anything that is against His nature.  At the cross, both His holiness and justice against sin is demonstrated and His love for sinners is demonstrated.  "that He might be both just and the justifier of those who have faith in Jesus"  Romans 3:25-26.  Amazing!

Addendum 2:

Romans 3:25 -

ὃν προέθετο ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων

"whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;"
Romans 3:25 NASB

"Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; (KJV)

It is translated at the mercy seat in Hebrews 9:5, true; as OT historical background and context demands; but the mercy seat was the place from where mercy is given (from God, when He met with them in the holy of holies in the temple after the sacrifices were performed, after the sacrifice and blood was sprinkled on the mercy seat, etc. thus appeasing and satisfying God's anger against sin; after propitation took place - averting the wrath of God or satisfying the wrath of God or satisfying justice.

The Verb form of this root is used in Luke 18:13 - "O God, be propitious to me, the sinner!"  ("have mercy on me" is possible because God provided the propitiation in the temple sacrifices - context of 2 men going to the temple.)

Hebrews 2:17 - the incarnation and atonement were both necessary - "it was necessary for Him to become flesh and blood, in order that He might be a faithful and merciful high priest in making propitiation for the sins of the people."

related words in
1 John 2:2
1 John 4:10

Revelation 5:9 and 7:9 explains 1 John 2:2 "propitiation for the sins of the whole world"  - that some people from every nation, language, people group, and tribe have been purchased (Rev. 5:9 - "You were slain and did purchase/redeem" = Aorist past tense) by the blood of the lamb. )

Rev. 7:9 and 7:14 - they are clothed in white robes, washed in the blood of the lamb. This shows imputation of Christ's righteousness being counted/imputed to them by their faith in Christ and His atonement.  Romans 3:24-26 - "through faith, justified by the atonement/propitiation in His blood" 

Even if Peter did die in Rome, it does not establish any such thing as a Papacy or Pope or even mono-episcocy

From an earlier post in the com boxes.  I have edited some of it.

John, (an Eastern Orthodox commentor) reminded us of Cyprian's statement -

Thanks for that reminder about what Cyprian wrote about "custom without truth, is an ancient error".
Very helpful and true.

"Nor ought custom, which had crept in among some, to prevent the truth from prevailing and conquering; for custom without truth is the antiquity of error."

Cyprian, Epistle 73, 9. (against Stephen, bishop of Rome)

 Ken said...

All,
Even if Peter died in Rome, it does not establish any such thing as a Papacy or Pope.

There is no such thing is a Pope or Papacy in the 27 books of the NT.

Also, the earliest writings affirm that a college/plurality of elders and the office of bishop is the same office. The names of elder and bishop is interchangable in the NT and earliest writings of the early fathers.

1 Clement 42-44  ( 96 AD)  - 2 offices - 1. elders and overseers are the same and 2. deacons

Didache 15     (70 - 120 AD ?)  2 offices 1.  overseers/bishops and 2. deacons


Philippians 1:1 - 2 church offices - 1.  overseers (episcopas, bishops) and 2.  deacons

Acts 14:23 (the apostles appointed elders for each church)

Titus 1:5-7 - verse 5 - appoint elders for each city - verse 7 - elders are the same as bishop/ overseer/ episcope


Also, James Swan pointed out that the evidence for Rome is that it did not have a mono-episcopate until much later. ( I Clement, Shepherd of Hermas, Peter Lampe's book and work; John Bugay wrote a lot in this area also, both here and over at Triablogue. see at the Addendum below)

Moreover, NONE of the earliest churches had a mono-episcopate. They all had a plurality of elders at first.

Ignatius (writing around 107-117 AD, ?) is the first evidence of the mono-episcopate, and seems to be where that custom/practice started.

Acts 20:17 - called the elders of the church in Ephesus

Acts 20:28 -the elders are to shepherd (Pastor, feed and guard) the flock of God, which God has made you overseers

1 Peter 5:1-4 - Peter calls himself fellow elder
and exhorts the elders to shepherd the flock and to act as overseers.

Babylon of 1 Peter 5:13 could be a cryptic reference to Rome, or the original Babylon of the OT in Mesopotamia, or Babylon could be a metaphor for apostate Jerusalem.

It seems that Ireneaus, Tertullian, Hegessipus, and Eusebius are reading a mono-episcopate office back into the first century by their "bishops list" of only one bishop appointed by Peter or other apostles in other areas.

The big question for me is how strong is the tradition that both Peter and Paul were executed by Nero around 67 AD in Rome, Peter by being crucified upside down, and Paul by being beheaded.

Addendum:
Thanks to John Bugay for adding the passages from the Shepherd of Hermas to the early witness that each church had a plurality of elders and not a mono episcopacy until later.  The earliest church history is elders for each church.  This also proves John Henry Cardinal Newman's statement wrong, "to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant". The clear reality of the earliest church government being a college of elders proves Newman was wrong.

The elderly woman came and asked me if I had already given the little book to the elders (presbuteroi, plural). I said that I had not given it. “You have done well,” she said, “for I have words to add. So when I finish all the words they will be made known to all the elect through you. Therefore you will write two little books, and you will send one to Clement and one to Grapte. Then Clement will send it to the cities abroad, because that is his job. But Grapte will instruct the widows and orphans. But you yourself will read it to this city [Rome], along with the elders (presbuteroi) who preside (proistamenoi – plural leadership) over the church.” (Vis 2.4)

Hermas also notes that these elders fight amongs themselves over primacy (meaning no one had it), and that they, themselves "have no instruction":

Now, therefore, I say to you [tois – plural] who lead the church and occupy the seats of honor: do not be like the sorcerers. For the sorcerers carry their drugs in bottles, but you carry your drug and poison in your heart. You are calloused and do not want to cleanse your hearts and to mix your wisdom together in a clean heart, in order that you may have mercy from the great King. Watch out, therefore, children, lest these divisions of yours [among you elders] deprive you of your life. How is it that you desire to instruct God’s elect, while you yourselves have no instruction? Instruct one another, therefore, and have peace among yourselves, in order that I too may stand joyfully before the Father and give an account on behalf of all of you to your Lord.” (Vis 3.9)

Addendum 2:
Algo reminded me of an earlier link I made over to a very thorough article by Brandon Addison.  We appreciate the Roman Catholics at Called to Communion for allowing such an article there. 
The Quest for the Historical Church, by Brandon Addison

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/03/the-quest-for-the-historical-church-a-protestant-assessment/

Some current responses to repeated Roman Catholic claims

Michael Kruger's excellent post on substitutionary atonement and the imputation of Christ's righteousness in the early church. 

Turretinfan's thorough response to Devin Rose's book, going through all 34 points/ chapters. 

My response to Roman Catholic DeMaria at Devin Rose's blog. 

Addendum:

My response to Devin Rose concerning the Called to Communion article on "The Canon Question" by Tom Brown.

Jason Engwer's Review of Tim Staples' book on Mary

Jason Engwer's Review of Tim Staples' book on Mary

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/11/tim-staples-book-about-mary.html

Yes indeed.