Bible Canon Questions

Today over at St. Joseph’s Vanguard Devin wrote an article about How Evangelicals Know Their Canon Is Correct. It describes an exchange Devin had with an Evangelical concerning which books belong in the Bible.

Now, not all Evangelicals will hold those views expressed in the article, but I have to say that Devin’s exchange bears a strong resemblance to conversations I myself have had with non-Catholics concerning Sacred Scripture…

In my experience, when a Catholic-Protestant dialog reaches this stage it often stagnates. You then spend a lot of time going round and round in circles… 🙁

In an effort to stop this from happening, I find that it is generally best to keep asking questions. These questions will hopefully reveal to the non-Catholic his unknown dependency upon Catholic Church with regards to the formation of the Canon.

You may recall a little while ago I wrote about an exchange I had with a chap called Jay. When we were talking about the Bible, these were some of the questions I asked him:

1.  Let’s say I don’t believe James should be in the Bible.  Show me why I’m wrong. What’s to stop me from just taking this book out of the Bible?

2.  Let’s say I believe that Clement’s letter to the Corinthians should be in the Bible.  Show me why I’m wrong.  He was alive during the time of the Apostles and Clement has strong credentials for being taught by them…

3. Who wrote the Letter to the Philippians? What about the Gospel of Mark? How do you know?

4. Who were the people who painstakingly copied the New Testament manuscripts throughout the centuries?

5. Have you checked the authenticity of every book in the Bible? Are you sure that we have all the available “inspired texts”? How did you reach your opinion over what and what isn’t the Word of God? Are you 100% certain? Can I trust your judgment on this? Because if you’re wrong I could be ignoring text which is the Word of God and reading text which isn’t…

6. Who assembled the canon of the New Testament and when? Please give me names and dates.

144 comments

  • 1.  Let’s say I don’t believe James should be in the Bible.  Show me why I’m wrong. What’s to stop me from just taking this book out of the Bible?

    The Council accepted it in the 500s A.D. while throwing out others. It is authoritative, dynamic, agrees with the rest of scripture, and the early Church accepted it as Canonical.

    2.  Let’s say I believe that Clement’s letter to the Corinthians should be in the Bible.  Show me why I’m wrong.  He was alive during the time of the Apostles and Clement has strong credentials for being taught by them…

    The Council rejected First Clement and others in the 500s A.D. as not fitting the qualifications of Sacred Scripture. Perhaps reading it today would shed more light on why it isn’t canon.

    3. Who wrote the Letter to the Philippians? What about the Gospel of Mark? How do you know?

    Phillipians: Paul and Timotheous, written therein. Mark: uncertain, probably John Mark, through testimony of St. Peter; by Church Tradition.

    4. Who were the people who painstakingly copied the New Testament manuscripts throughout the centuries?

    5. Have you checked the authenticity of every book in the Bible? Are you sure that we have all the available “inspired texts”? How did you reach your opinion over what and what isn’t the Word of God? Are you 100% certain? Can I trust your judgment on this? Because if you’re wrong I could be ignoring text which is the Word of God and reading text which isn’t…

    We receive all these books, and these only, as holy and cononical, for the regulation, foundation, and confirmation of our faith; believing without any doubt all things contained in them, not so much because the Church recieves and approves them as such, but more especially because the Holy Spirit witnesses in our hearts that they are from God, and also because they carry the evidence thereof in themselves. For the very blind are able to percieve that the things foretold in them are being fulfilled. Belgic Confession of Faith, Article 5.

    6. Who assembled the canon of the New Testament and when? Please give me names and dates.

    The Synod of Laodicea in 363 rejected certain books, the Council of Hippo in 393 recognised the 27 New Testament canonical books, Synod of Carthage in 397 stated similarly, Council of Carthage 419, once again affirmed the 27. Earlier councils discluded a few of the books, such as James, Hebrews, and Revelation.
    Saints Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus, all listed books of the NT.
    The Apocrypha has always been somewhat doubted as to its authority. Never was it given more authority or merit than as deuterocanonical—secondary canon. It has self-contradictions, unorthodox doctrines and early leaders such as St. Augustine doubted their authority. That said, they are fit to use for edification, so long as they agree with Sacred Scripture.

    • The Council accepted it in the 500s A.D. while throwing out others.

      Which Council? The Second Council of Constantinople?

      It is authoritative, dynamic, agrees with the rest of scripture, and the early Church accepted it as Canonical.

      Most candidates for the canon speak with an authoritative tone.

      I’m not sure quite sure what you mean by it being “dynamic”.

      As for agreeing with the rest of Scripture, that’s rather circular, since we’re trying to answer the question of what actually even is Scripture. Also, there are lots of non-Canonical works (such as 1 Clement) which also concur with the contents of the New Testament – that doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re Scripture.

      However, the important point here you recognize – the Early Church held it to be canonical and they had the necessary authority to make such a pronouncement.

      • I was incorrect with my dates. In the second century, Marcion made his own canon, and made apparent that the Church must decide what truly is canon. It was finally decided at the Council of Carthage 397.
        By dynamic, it is meant that it has the power to change lives. Not a clear arguement for this I admit, but greater than that it had apostolic authority behind it, and was accepted by the early church.
        The authoritative tone is that James talked as if it were from God (a dangerous thing to do). Again apostolic authority.
        If we all accept certain books as canon, we must define other books by those. If it doesn’t agree with books already in canon, we cannot add it.
        Good points made.

        • It was finally decided at the Council of Carthage 397.

          Do you regard the decree of Carthage as the final word and binding for Christians? If so, why? Also, how do you account for the presence of deuterocanonical books in their list?

          If you don’t regard Carthage as definitive, when was the canon finally settled and by whom?

          By dynamic, it is meant that it has the power to change lives. Not a clear arguement for this I admit,

          I think that argument is so weak that it shouldn’t be used. As mentioned, many books of the Old Testament leave me cold. In contrast, my life has been profoundly affected by the poetry of Kahlil Gibran and the writings of C.S. Lewis, but that doesn’t mean that either are Scripture. Even the Qur’an and the Book of Mormon changes lives…

          The authoritative tone is that James talked as if it were from God (a dangerous thing to do)

          Once again, the Qur’an and the Book of Mormon speaks with an authoritative tone…

          If we all accept certain books as canon, we must define other books by those. If it doesn’t agree with books already in canon, we cannot add it.

          Okay, but what’s your starting point? Which books are you already accepting as canon? Those in the Sadducee canon? The Pharisees? The Essenes? Where do you begin with the New Testament?

          • I agree, the dynamic argument is extremely weak, it was one of the arguments I was taught.
            I would use the starting point as that that all Christians verify. If they are doubted, then they must be, in some sense, a weaker foundation than if none doubt them. Suppose I see a post and consider whether I should trust it to hold my weight to lean upon. I think it is not sturdy, and my buddy, from his different perspective, does. Supposing there is another post right next to it that we both agree is sturdy. Would it not be wiser to choose the one that by both perspectives is sturdy, instead of risking falling and hurting myself? In the same strain, some of my brothers say that the deuterocanonical texts are firm, while others doubt its strength. (What’s more, those I trust more assert that it is not firm; and wouldn’t you rather place faith in a trusted friend than in one you are just learning to trust?)
            If we include the Apocryphal texts, which to not agree in all respects with the protocanon, then we allow a weak point in our whole basis for our faith.

          • I agree, the dynamic argument is extremely weak, it was one of the arguments I was taught.

            Yeah, I’d drop that. It might be helpful for encouraging a non-believer to read the Bible, but for settling the canon it’s pretty useless.

            Interestingly, it’s an argument much used by the Reformers. They thought it was a good test… unless, of course, other Protestants wanted to throw out books which they thought should be retained.

            I would use the starting point as that that all Christians verify.

            It’s not a bad starting point, but the Church isn’t a democracy.

            Next, the power of this argument changes over time. There was much more agreement on this question prior to the Reformation. Since then, there has been a rapidly increasing diversity of belief among Christians, meaning what is held in common has continuously shrinks. In fact, I can’t think of a single historic, orthodox doctrine that isn’t contested by some Protestant denomination somewhere.

            Additionally, your starting point makes some major assumptions which need to be examined. It assumes that the Bishops of the Church have authority to make such a pronouncement on the canon. What is the extent of this authority? Is it protected from error?

            Also, you are trusting that the Early Church regarding the canon, but can you really rely on them if they had a host of beliefs which you believe to be heresy?

            If they are doubted, then they must be, in some sense, a weaker foundation than if none doubt them.

            Not really – Arius and the Arians doubted that Christ was fully divine… but he was wrong.

            Also, if you follow your methodology consistently, you will have to do this with disputed books of the New Testament. Now, you might say that the books were standardized in later centuries…but why would we draw the line at that point in history?

            Would it not be wiser to choose the one that by both perspectives is sturdy, instead of risking falling and hurting myself?

            This just results in a watered-down, lowest-common-denomination Christianity.

            If we include the Apocryphal texts, which to not agree in all respects with the protocanon, then we allow a weak point in our whole basis for our faith.

            There’s no inconsistency between the Deuterocanon and the Protocanon any more than there’s a disagreement between James and Paul as to what saves us (even though Luther thought they couldn’t be reconciled).

          • BTW, this question went unanswered and I’m curious as to your answer: Do you regard the decree of Carthage as the final word and binding for Christians? If so, why? Also, how do you account for the presence of deuterocanonical books in their list? If you don’t regard Carthage as definitive, when was the canon finally settled and by whom?

    • The Council rejected First Clement and others in the 500s A.D. as not fitting the qualifications of Sacred Scripture. Perhaps reading it today would shed more light on why it isn’t canon.

      Which Council and where do the Council Fathers explain their reasoning?

      • The Church, we believe, is our Mother (not certain whether Catholics believe this, with the whole Mary thing), and therefore has authority over us. The Bishops have authority too, as representing the Church, but they are men. They can be wrong. We Protestant admit that (we would rather it not be so), and we must lean on them when they are right, and part from them in the point they are wrong (God-willing few times). Our beloved C.S. Lewis believed they could be wrong. Remember Bishop Episcopal Ghost?
        The Council of Carthage, nor any other council is the final authority. That is God. God is settles the canon in Heaven. We must accept it on earth (recieve is the word the councils used, I think). Councils can be wrong. (This leads to a weakness: how do we know which are right? I would answer by saying, each generation must have its faith renewed by God. As a firm believer in predestination, I know his plan is working for Good. Let’s have faith in Him that He knows what He’s doing. It’s gonna work out.)
        I think it was Lewis who said that protestant churches are a desert, and Catholics are a overgrown jungle. You said we are left with are bare, watered down Christianity. At least, we hope, our bare, watered down one, is true. That is the goal. We see it more like the Church is a stone building, and the Roman Church built a bunch of wood over it: perhaps we got rid of the wood and left the stone. We hope, and believe that we didn’t break the stone with our sledge-hammers. Some protestants did. We wanted reform, and needed it. We believe, by faith, and by our sure foundation, the Word of God, we are right. And that is why this disscussion is so important, we must find what is the word of God.
        The point is: God decides, we accept.
        As to the Council of Carthage, I had forgotten the presense of some of the deuterocanon, but once again, it is infallible. Even you recognise that the church fathers were fallible. You say Jerome and Athanasius were wrong about the Scriptures.
        You say the Church isn’t a democracy. Correct: it’s a theocracy, God is the ruler, the Head of the Church. But we must decide where the church is right or wrong, based upon Sacred Scripture.

        • The Church, we believe, is our Mother (not certain whether Catholics believe this, with the whole Mary thing),

          Of course we do – we were the first to describe her as such! Not only that, Mary is an image of the Church.

          …and therefore has authority over us.

          What kind of authority?

          The Bishops have authority too,

          From where did they get this authority? This was a sticking point for me during my time in the Protestant world. Particularly if one denies Apostolic Succession, apparently one gains this authority just by doing a course at a Bible College. Needless to say, this is not how the Early Church operated.

          The Early Church exercised authority – that’s clear. Can you trace your Bishops back to the Early Church?

          …as representing the Church, but they are men. They can be wrong. We Protestant admit that (we would rather it not be so), and we must lean on them when they are right, and part from them in the point they are wrong (God-willing few times).

          So, you can stand in judgement over those in authority over you when you think they’re wrong… That sounds like no authority at all.

          Our beloved C.S. Lewis believed they could be wrong. Remember Bishop Episcopal Ghost?

          Sure, and (a) C.S. Lewis is not my standard when it comes to doctrine (b) Catholics and Orthodox do not affirm that infallibility is a charism given to each individual bishop. At the very least, an Ecumenical Council is required.

          The Council of Carthage, nor any other council is the final authority. That is God.

          So God has given us no way of knowing what is and isn’t Scripture? It doesn’t speak well of His provision if we’re meant to be following Sola Scriptura and yet have no real certainty as to what “Scriptura” even is.

          God is settles the canon in Heaven.We must accept it on earth…

          Didn’t Jesus say something to Peter about whatever he bound on earth, He would bind in Heaven?

          Councils can be wrong.

          If an Ecumenical Council can be wrong, then the Church as a whole can be in error, which makes a nonsense of St. Paul’s affirmation that the Church is the “pillar and foundation of the truth”

          (This leads to a weakness: how do we know which are right? I would answer by saying, each generation must have its faith renewed by God. As a firm believer in predestination, I know his plan is working for Good. Let’s have faith in Him that He knows what He’s doing. It’s gonna work out.)

          Well, we’ve had four hundred years since the Reformation. What have been the fruits of each generation re-evaluating the faith? Would you say that things have got better or worse? As I pointed out earlier, there isn’t a single historic orthodox doctrine or practice which isn’t rejected by some Protestant group. To pick just one example, there isn’t any Protestant denomination today which rejects abortion outright. To pick another example, for over 1900 years every Christian group rejected contraception, but now the Catholic Church is the only Christian organisation which maintains the ancient Christian belief.

          I think it was Lewis who said that protestant churches are a desert, and Catholics are a overgrown jungle. You said we are left with are bare, watered down Christianity. At least, we hope, our bare, watered down one, is true. That is the goal.

          I see that as being in no way the safer option – believing something which is false is not worse than failing to believe something which is true. To pick an example pertinent to our discussion, because you deny that 2 Maccabees is Scripture (and reject the ancient teaching of the Church), you fail to pray for the dead, which Maccabees tells us is a “good and pious” thing to do.

          We see it more like the Church is a stone building, and the Roman Church built a bunch of wood over it: perhaps we got rid of the wood and left the stone.

          You’re implying that the Catholic Church has accretions, but the Protestant Church has outright novelties. No Christian denied the regenerative power of baptism until the Reformation, no Christian believed in once-saved-always-saved until 16th Century, and no Christian believed in Calvinistic imputation prior to Calvin. Crucially, no Christian ever listed a canon identical to the Protestant canon until there were Protestants!

          We hope, and believe that we didn’t break the stone with our sledge-hammers. Some protestants did.

          But as Luther discovered, there’s no limiting principle in Protestantism since, if I am ultimately the interpreter of (what I regard as) Scripture, there is no authority higher than me.

          We wanted reform, and needed it.

          …but what resulted was schism and, whatever your reading of the Reformation given the cacophony of contradictory doctrine, heresy.

          We believe, by faith, and by our sure foundation, the Word of God, we are right.

          …once you arrogate to yourself the authority to determine what is and isn’t Scripture. You admit that your interpretations of Scripture are fallible, so not only are they fallible, they are very often at odds with those closest to the Apostles. Even if one rejected the authority of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, at least their interpretations of Scripture have better historical precedent.

          And that is why this disscussion is so important, we must find what is the word of God.

          But you can’t tell us for sure what that is though if you think the canon is “fallible collection of infallible books”.

          The point is: God decides, we accept.

          How does God tell us though? Has he given us a Church which can rule on such things, or is it every-man-for-himself?

          As to the Council of Carthage, I had forgotten the presense of some of the deuterocanon, but once again, it is infallible.

          I assume you missed a “not” here too.

          So, if the Council of Carthage is fallible and included books which you rejected, why even bother to cite it in your argument at all? I mentioned it above, but it’s worth repeating – you don’t find anybody with a Protestant canon prior to the Reformation. Not a single Church Father, not a single council (local or Ecumenical) affirmed the same Table of Contents which you have in your Bible. Why is that not a massive problem?

          Even you recognise that the church fathers were fallible. You say Jerome and Athanasius were wrong about the Scriptures.

          Individually, sure. We look for “consensus patrum” and ultimately the ruling of Ecumenical Councils.

          You say the Church isn’t a democracy. Correct: it’s a theocracy, God is the ruler, the Head of the Church.

          Yes, but He appointed Ministers to administer His Kingdom – the Apostles and their successors. He also appointed a Prime Minister over those ministers, Peter and his successors, and gave them His own authority, the “keys of the Kingdom”.

          But we must decide where the church is right or wrong, based upon Sacred Scripture.

          Once again… you presume to know what Scripture actually is, but that’s the very point in question!

          • Not entirely certain how both Mary and the Church can be our mother? I guess you are referring to Cyprian of Carthage: “He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother” (On the Unity of the Church 6).
            “What kind of authority?” The sort in 1 Timothy 3:15 talking about the church as “a pillar and butress of truth,” its authority is based on Scripture, and founded on Scripture; once it leaves Scripture, it hasn’t much authority, because, I would argue, it is no longer the Church.
            The bishops, elders, are also called pastors—shepherds. The shepherd is responsible for the flock and has authority over them. Once again, in Scripture, in the Church. The pastors job is important, difficult, and dangerous. “be not many pastors” James tells us. More than that, pastors are servants: Luke 22:25-26 Jesus says: ‘And He said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles excersice lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. Be not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves.”’
            Now of course one cannot (or should not) become a pastor just through attending Bible college. He must be called, and fit all the requirements. This is why we have the rite of ordination. Through the Bible, yes, we can trace our “bishops” to the early church (we Presbyterians do not have bishops, exactly). If we are following the Bible, we are in the steps of the early church. Why need there be a direct lineage? If one is saved through reading the Bible, imagining none witnessed to him, would you be surprised if he started preaching, and ministering to those in his community, who likewise have, before him, had no preacher? Romans 10: 14 “And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? “
            “So, you can stand in judgement over those in authority over you when you think they’re wrong… That sounds like no authority at all.” It is not us who stand in judgement but the word of God, but we I suppose, must all judge whether our pastor is following the Word: if a pastor is a divorced, drunken, backbiting, man he is no pastor at all and must be removed. Likewise if he is adding (or subtracting) from scripture, he also is no pastor of Christ, but a pastor of himself.
            In the case of the Episcopal Ghost, (though I do not base my doctrine on Lewis either), it was not only him who was in error, but also those who appointed him, maybe even those who appointed them, and so on. Unless we admit the Church as a unit containing fallible men, (and I am not sure how we can, on earth, distinctly draw the line between the true and false parts of the Church, save with scripture, where we can clearly draw lines) is fallible, then we clearly must ask further questions, and problems very easily arise.
            Of course we are provided for by Scripture. We do know what we have is the Word of God. We beliieve it by faith, and the early church affirmed its authority. We must still affirm it today, which is why it cannot be final. We can make mistakes too, and may (or may not) have made a mistake in leaving out the Apocrypha.
            Matthew 18: 18-20 : “Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”
            Not really sure where Peter comes in there. It says if two of you. Now we can argue whether this is applied to the Church as a whole, or just bishops, but I will not go there.
            An Ecumenical Council is not the whole church, it is a part (a small part) of the church (not even this necessarily, if they go against Sacred Scripture), in one place, at one time. In the Council of Toulouse forbade the reading of the Bible in the laity’s language. Do you still hold to that, or were they wrong?
            “there isn’t any Protestant denomination today which rejects abortion outright.” Simply untrue. The 6th General Assembly of the PCA in 1978 outright says that the Bible forbids abortion. The OPC and RPCES said the same, even earlier.
            “I see that as being in no way the safer option – believing something which is false is not worse than failing to believe something which is true.” Agreed.
            Not going to go into baptismal regeneration, as I haven’t studied it much, but since Calvinism is clearly based on Scripture, and since the doctrines of grace are from Paul primarily, you cannont say that the early church did not hold to the doctrines of grace unless you see Paul not as the early church. I haven’t read much of the Church fathers, but St Augustine is pretty much the same, as far as I can tell. Of course, one can argue against this.
            The canon many times over was listed as the protestants have it (save, some of the deuterocanonical texts) in church councils.

            “But as Luther discovered, there’s no limiting principle in Protestantism since, if I am ultimately the interpreter of (what I regard as) Scripture, there is no authority higher than me.” Which is why we have creeds, confessions, and catechisms. The regulation is Scripture. God is the authority, so is the Church, but the Church can be wrong, and we emphatically say, the Roman Church was.
            The schism and controversy, was a sad happening. Any recommendations on how to clean it? You give freedom, and bad things can happen. Simple math.

            “…once you arrogate to yourself the authority to determine what is and isn’t Scripture.” I do not. I hold to my church, as my authority. I am in no wise fit to determine what is and is not scripture. But I can receive what I am given.
            God gives us Scripture through the Church. We both agree on that. But my church admits that the Church can be wrong.
            The foundation of our entire faith is the Scripture. I am not fit to just choose what books I like, so I go to my church. They have agreed that the Apocrypha is not Sacred Scripture, and there always have been arguments about this, so we will, no doubt continue to argue. That is unfortunate, but I see no middle ground, unless our Synods changed.

          • Not entirely certain how both Mary and the Church can be our mother? I guess you are referring to Cyprian of Carthage: “He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother” (On the Unity of the Church 6).

            Why is there a difficulty? For example, the Corinthians had their biological fathers, God as their Father, and St. Paul as their father too! (1 Corinthians 4:15). Mary is described as Mother of the Church as far back as the Fourth Century.

            You find praise of Mary throughout the Fathers as, among other things, Ark, Queen, and New Eve: “Eve was called the mother of the living …the whole race of man upon earth was born from Eve; but in reality it is from Mary the Life was truly born to the world. So that by giving birth to the Living One, Mary became the mother of all living” – St. Epiphanius, “Against Eighty Heresies” (4th Century)

          • “What kind of authority?” The sort in 1 Timothy 3:15 talking about the church as “a pillar and butress of truth,” its authority is based on Scripture, and founded on Scripture; once it leaves Scripture, it hasn’t much authority, because, I would argue, it is no longer the Church.

            You’re injecting a lot into 1 Timothy 3:15 which isn’t actually in the text. Also, if the Church can actually cease to be the Church, in what possible sense is it the pillar and foundation of the truth?

            (It’s also worth really underscoring that Sola Scriptura was not held by the Early Church.)

            The bishops, elders, are also called pastors—shepherds. The shepherd is responsible for the flock and has authority over them. Once again, in Scripture, in the Church.

            What does that mean though? Are they called to interpret Scripture? Can their interpretations be rejected and overruled by the laity? If so, what kind of authority is that?

            To see a more Catholic conception of authority, here’s how Ignatius of Antioch described the authority of the Church in the AD 107: “See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop… Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” – Letter to the Smyrnaeans

            More than that, pastors are servants…

            As an aside, this is why one of the titles of the Pope since the Sixth Century is “Servus servorum Dei”, namely “Servant of the Servants of God”.

            Now of course one cannot (or should not) become a pastor just through attending Bible college. He must be called, and fit all the requirements.

            Who decides if someone is called and what are these other requirements?

            Through the Bible, yes, we can trace our “bishops” to the early church (we Presbyterians do not have bishops, exactly).

            Isn’t the entire point of Presbyterians that you only have presbyters?

            If we are following the Bible, we are in the steps of the early church.

            If… If… Every single Christian group makes the claim that they’re “following the Bible”, yet each teach contradictory doctrine – they can’t all be correct.

            Why need there be a direct lineage?

            It’s needed to demonstrate that your congregation isn’t just a Sixteenth Century aberration, teaching novel doctrines.

            The other reason I’m asking for a lineage is because that’s one of the ways the Early Church fought heresy. The Gnostics claimed that they had the true teachings of Jesus. In AD 180 when St. Irenaeus wrote several books refuting them, he argued like this: “…tradition derived from the apostles, of the… Church founded and organized at Rome…which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority…Linus…Anacletus…Clement…[many other names]…hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth” – Against Heresies III.3.3

            Does this sound like a line of argumentation your church would use?

            It is not us who stand in judgement but the word of God

            Admittedly, you personal, fallible interpretation of the Word of God. Here in lies the fundamental problem with Sola Scriptura. If nobody is Pope, everybody is Pope.

            In the case of the Episcopal Ghost, (though I do not base my doctrine on Lewis either), it was not only him who was in error, but also those who appointed him, maybe even those who appointed them, and so on.

            By that logic, Jesus was in error because He appointed Judas as Apostle.

            Unless we admit the Church as a unit containing fallible men, (and I am not sure how we can, on earth, distinctly draw the line between the true and false parts of the Church, save with scripture, where we can clearly draw lines) is fallible, then we clearly must ask further questions, and problems very easily arise.

            Here’s a thought experiment – were the decrees of the Council of Jerusalem infallible and binding on Christians? If yes, what about if the incident hadn’t been recorded in Acts of the Apostles?

            Of course we are provided for by Scripture.

            St. Peter says that some of it is hard to understand and people twist it to their destruction (2 Peter 3:16).

            We do know what we have is the Word of God.

            Earlier you affirmed that it’s a fallible list…

            We beliieve it by faith, and the early church affirmed its authority.

            You speak as though the Early Church affirmed your canon – it didn’t. Also, I’m pretty sure I could give a very long list of doctrines found in the Early Church which you would reject. If you’re happy to reject the Early Church’s judgment on these, why appeal to them regarding the canon?

            Matthew 18: 18-20…Not really sure where Peter comes in there. It says if two of you. Now we can argue whether this is applied to the Church as a whole, or just bishops, but I will not go there.

            You’ve got the wrong passage. I’m referring to Matthew 16 where Christ gives Peter the “Keys of the Kingdom”. What is you understanding of the keys? How did the Early Church understand it? What is their Old Testament precedent? (For my answer to these questions, please see here)

            An Ecumenical Council is not the whole church, it is a part (a small part) of the church (not even this necessarily, if they go against Sacred Scripture), in one place, at one time.

            It is a meeting of a large number of bishops whose canons are ratified by the Bishop of Rome.

            In the Council of Toulouse forbade the reading of the Bible in the laity’s language. Do you still hold to that, or were they wrong?

            This was a local council, not an ecumenical one and therefore is not infallible. Have you read about the situation surrounding the council? This wasn’t so much about vernacular translations as heretical translations by Albigensians and Cathars, and I’m assuming you don’t affirm their doctrines!

          • “there isn’t any Protestant denomination today which rejects abortion outright.” Simply untrue. The 6th General Assembly of the PCA in 1978 outright says that the Bible forbids abortion. The OPC and RPCES said the same, even earlier.

            Oh, I don’t deny that you’ll find groups within a denomination holding to the historic view. However, you’ll also find bodies within every denomination who’ll give a bunch of exceptions, which is why The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) could say that “The decision of a woman to terminate a pregnancy can be a morally acceptable decision.”

            “I see that as being in no way the safer option – believing something which is false is not worse than failing to believe something which is true.” Agreed.

            Okay, so mistakenly excluding the Deuterocanon is no safer than mistakenly including it.

            Not going to go into baptismal regeneration…

            If you look at the witness of the Early Church, you will find them affirming Baptismal Regeneration universally. Absolutely one hundred percent.

            …since Calvinism is clearly based on Scripture, and since the doctrines of grace are from Paul primarily, you cannont say that the early church did not hold to the doctrines of grace unless you see Paul not as the early church. I haven’t read much of the Church fathers, but St Augustine is pretty much the same, as far as I can tell. Of course, one can argue against this.

            Calvinism is based on a particular interpretation of Scripture. You’re assuming that just because appeals can be made by the Calvinist to Scripture, that it is Scriptural. Jehovah Witnesses make appeals to Scripture. You must realize that non-Calvinists also appeal to Scripture.

            So, lots of people appeal to Scripture. Whose interpretation is most likely correct? Well, one important piece of evidence would be to look at the first generations who received Scripture – how did they interpret it? If their interpretation contradicts your own, it should give you pause for thought.

            Regarding Augustine, while he is often held up as a proto-Protestant, he definitely isn’t.

            The canon many times over was listed as the protestants have it (save, some of the deuterocanonical texts) in church councils.

            If it’s got any of the deuterocanonical texts in it then it’s not the Protestant canon! Please answer this: when is the first council which lists your canon exactly?

            “But as Luther discovered, there’s no limiting principle in Protestantism since, if I am ultimately the interpreter of (what I regard as) Scripture, there is no authority higher than me.” Which is why we have creeds, confessions, and catechisms. The regulation is Scripture.

            They don’t regulate anything! These creeds, confession and catechisms are not authoritative – they sit below Scripture. They are simply an expression of a group’s interpretation of the Bible.

            The schism and controversy, was a sad happening. Any recommendations on how to clean it? You give freedom, and bad things can happen. Simple math.

            This is a very modern conception of freedom.

            Is this in accord with Christ’s prayer that “They all be one as You [the Father] and I are one”, or with St. Paul’s command to the Corinthian Church that “there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment”?

            Once again, the Early Church didn’t have this attitude that everyone should go and read Scripture and reach their own conclusions. For example, Pope Clement wrote this:

            Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by [Jesus] though us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect – St. Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59 (AD 95)

            …and Cyprian of Carthage said:

            If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he should desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? – St. Cyrpian of Carthage, The Unity of the Catholic Church (AD 252)

            “…once you arrogate to yourself the authority to determine what is and isn’t Scripture.” I do not. I hold to my church, as my authority…

            What’s the substantive difference between you and your church? Your leaders are just a group of people like you. Why is it they have authority and you don’t? From where do they get this authority to determine what is and isn’t Scripture?

            God gives us Scripture through the Church. We both agree on that. But my church admits that the Church can be wrong.

            If your church can be wrong, then how does God give us Scripture through the Church? The best you could say is God gives us Scripture through the Church…but we could very possibly not have received it correctly.

            But leaving that aside, it really needs to be answered whether you think that your church is the same Church that was founded by Christ and the same Church which discerned the Scripture in the early Centuries.

            The foundation of our entire faith is the Scripture.

            It wasn’t in the Early Church. The Early Church existed for decades before a single line of the New Testament was written. It was even longer before a single Gospel was written. It was an entire generation before the New Testament books had been completed. It was centuries before the boundaries of what was and wasn’t Scripture were finalised. Even then, the majority of people were illiterate.

            So what was the foundation of the faith? Well, Scripture actually gives us the answer – it’s the Church! Long before a single line of Scripture was written, an authoritative Church existed which was passing on Sacred Tradition, some of which was later written down in what we call Sacred Scripture.

            I am not fit to just choose what books I like, so I go to my church.

            Why that church though? Why start there? Why not go to the Catholic or Orthodox Churches to receive the books?

    • Phillipians: Paul and Timotheous, written therein. Mark: uncertain, probably John Mark, through testimony of St. Peter; by Church Tradition.

      Just because a letter claims to be written by someone doesn’t mean that it actually was. However, the key point is recognized that it rests of Sacred Tradition.

    • 4. Who were the people who painstakingly copied the New Testament manuscripts throughout the centuries?

      This question went unanswered.

      • Missed this one. The early church, of course. And later scribes.

        • The early church, of course. And later scribes.

          Basically true. For much of Christian history it was principally the monks. My point in asking this question is point to the beliefs of those who are preserving Scripture long before the Reformation.

    • We receive all these books, and these only, as holy and cononical, for the regulation, foundation, and confirmation of our faith; believing without any doubt all things contained in them, not so much because the Church recieves and approves them as such, but more especially because the Holy Spirit witnesses in our hearts that they are from God, and also because they carry the evidence thereof in themselves. For the very blind are able to percieve that the things foretold in them are being fulfilled. Belgic Confession of Faith, Article 5.

      This didn’t really answer the question, which asked whether you had gone through any kind of personal verification that we have the authentic word of God without omission in the canon.

      The quotation from the Belgic Confession attempts to downplay the role of the Church in assembling the canon, and instead places the emphasis on subjective feeling. This “burning of the bosom” is the Mormon test for truth and notoriously unreliable. For the last couple of years I’ve read the Bible from cover-to-cover and I’ve got to say, there were quite a few books which gave me no such feeling.

      • As to personal verification perhaps you mean research? But if not, it isn’t I who verify, it is God, who through the early Church chose the canon, and passed it on to us. But does the Spirit convict my heart for leaving out the Apocryphal texts? No, I am afraid not.

        • As to personal verification perhaps you mean research? But if not, it isn’t I who verify, it is God, who through the early Church chose the canon, and passed it on to us. But does the Spirit convict my heart for leaving out the Apocryphal texts? No, I am afraid not.

          Yeah, when I meet Christians who are convinced of their canon, I want to know on what basis they make that claim. Are they trusting the Early Church, the Fathers of the Reformation, their “burning of the bosom”, or have they done independent study of each potential book of Scripture (Hebrews, 1 Clement, The Shepherd of Hermas, …) and assembled the canon themselves from Scratch.

          • I suppose it would be in good order to do a personal study and research the books. Can’t wait for that class.

          • You can do that, but my point is that every Christian is really simply accepting a tradition – the question just turns on whether it’s a new tradition and whether the one propagating the tradition has the authority to do so.

          • God has given us the canon of the Scriptures through the church. We both agree on that. R.C. Sproul, in his book *Essential Truths of the Christian Faith* points out where we differ: Catholics believe in an infallible canon *and* infallible Scripture, whereas Protestants believe in a fallible canon and infallible Scripture. I will readily admit that this caused in me more confusion than clarification: if we don’t know for sure whether the canon is correct, then how do we know that the Scriptures are the correct canon, and therefore infallible? My only answer comes down to this: faith. We believe, by faith, that the Scriptures we have are correct, (“my words shall never pass away”) and if we are wrong, God will point it out. Even if we are wrong, God can use it for good. This conversation is great because it points out weaknesses in my faith, but at the same time, I must continue having the faith. I have lost the argument. But perhaps not the war.
            We accept Church Tradition. We also believe it is fallible, and do not accept where we believe it is wrong.

          • God has given us the canon of the Scriptures through the church. We both agree on that.

            Fine, but I think we disagree as to the meaning of at least two crucial terms in that sentence – “canon of the Scriptures” and “church”.

            R.C. Sproul, in his book *Essential Truths of the Christian Faith* points out where we differ: Catholics believe in an infallible canon *and* infallible Scripture, whereas Protestants believe in a fallible canon and infallible Scripture.

            …and I’d say his admission is pretty problematic as he can’t actually say with certainty that the canon is actually correct! How on earth are you meant to do Sola Scriptura with that as your starting point?!

            My only answer comes down to this: faith.

            I normally hear fideistic statements like this from Latter-Day Saints when they can no longer defend the claims of Mormonism on rational grounds. God calls us to love Him with our mind as well as our heart.

            We believe, by faith, that the Scriptures we have are correct, (“my words shall never pass away”)…

            Aside from introducing circularities again by quoting Matthew’s Gospel, I have to point out that Jesus saying “my words shall never pass away” is not the same thing as saying “The Protestant Canon is correct”.

            However, if you want to stretch the meaning of Jesus’ words to refer to the canon, could it be that His words haven’t passed away because they are still honoured by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches in the Deuterocanon?

            …if we are wrong, God will point it out

            What would you expect that to look like exactly?

            Is it possible that He has pointed out that the Protestant canon is wrong? Is it possible that He founded a Church to authoritatively speak on such matters at, say, an Ecumenical Council? This was, after all, the process in Acts 15 when contentious questions were raised.

            This conversation is great because it points out weaknesses in my faith, but at the same time, I must continue having the faith.

            I have to point out that you’re using the word “faith” here in two different ways in the same sentence. You’re first of all using it in the sense of a set of propositions – Jesus is Lord, the Protestant canon is correct, etc. However, you’re then using it in terms of trusting God. You don’t need to get rid of the latter, but I would suggest you do need to update some of the propositions in the former when they’re shown to be untenable.

            I have lost the argument. But perhaps not the war.

            The question is whether or not you will update your worldview to conform to the things you’ve discovered in this exchange.

            We accept Church Tradition. We also believe it is fallible, and do not accept where we believe it is wrong.

            Sorry, but this is just another way of saying that you don’t accept Tradition. This is why I argue that there’s no difference between SolA Scriptura and SolO Scriptura: they both pretty much boil down to the same thing: the locus of final interpretive authority ultimately lies with the individual Protestant. His denomination may “suggest”, the creeds of the early Councils may “guide”, but the final interpreter of Scripture is still that individual Protestant. Unfortunately, this produces as many “final authorities” as there are Sola Scriptura Christians. Or, put another way, if nobody is Pope, everybody is Pope.

    • The Synod of Laodicea in 363 rejected certain books, the Council of Hippo in 393 recognised the 27 New Testament canonical books, Synod of Carthage in 397 stated similarly, Council of Carthage 419, once again affirmed the 27. Earlier councils discluded a few of the books, such as James, Hebrews, and Revelation.

      For a more complete list of councils which addressed the question of the canon, please see here.

      Saints Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus, all listed books of the NT.

      I think this statment is misleading, as Ignatius, Polycarp, and Hippolytus list no canon. They do, however, quote and allude to New Testament (and non-canonical) works. We have a similar situation with Irenaeus, except that he has a wider array of references, as well as identifying a four-fold Gospel.

      (You also find deuterocanonical works cited as Scripture among some of these Fathers)

      The Apocrypha has always been somewhat doubted as to its authority.

      You said yourself that various books of the New Testament were questioned. It seems strange that you would ultimately accept the Church’s verdict on those books, but not on the deuterocanon.

      Never was it given more authority or merit than as deuterocanonical—secondary canon.

      This is both false and misleading. You seem to think that as a secondary canon that it is of lower authority, but this is incorrect.

      It has self-contradictions

      An atheist will point out what he regards as contradictions in the protocanon. Does that mean it’s true? No, because your tradition holds to the protocanon, you give it the benefit of the doubt and look for ways to harmonize it. The same is true for the deuterocanon.

      unorthodox doctrines

      Once again, your argument is circular. If these books are Scripture then they are necessarily orthodox. Many of the Fathers whom you referenced quoted these books. Does that then mean that they are unorthodox and unreliable? Should we reject their affirmation of the protocanon?

      St. Augustine doubted their authority. That said, they are fit to use for edification, so long as they agree with Sacred Scripture.

      Citation please. Augustine was at the very councils you mentioned before where the Deuterocanonical books were declared canonical.

      Now the whole canon of Scripture on which we say this judgment is to be exercised, is contained in the following books:—Five books of Moses… Job, and Tobias, and Esther, and Judith, and the two books of Maccabees… three books of Solomon, viz., Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. For two books, one called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus… they are to be reckoned among the prophetical books, since they have attained recognition as being authoritative… In all these books those who fear God and are of a meek and pious disposition seek the will of God. – St. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book II, Chapter 8

      • “This is both false and misleading. You seem to think that as a secondary canon that it is of lower authority, but this is incorrect.” Why is this incorrect? Deutero means “secondary,” and the deuterocanonical texts are of secondary authority to Sacred Scripture. Please further explain.
        St. Augustine did at first defend Apocryphal authority, but later came to hold oppinions similar to Jerome’s.
        Augustine (354-430) on the Canon of Scripture:
        But let us now go back to consider the third step here mentioned, for it is about it that I have set myself to speak and reason as the Lord shall grant me wisdom. The most skillful interpreter of the sacred writings, then, will be he who in the first place has read them all and retained them in his knowledge, if not yet with full understanding, still with such knowledge as reading gives,—those of them, at least, that arc called canonical. For he will read the others with greater safety when built up in the belief of the truth, so that they will not take first possession of a weak mind, nor, cheating it with dangerous falsehoods and delusions, fill it with prejudices adverse to a sound understanding. Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of catholic churches; and among these, of course, a high place must be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles. Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal. NPNF1: Vol. II, On Christian Doctrine, Book II, Chapter 8.
        Based on this, I am going to go with my church’s doctrine on this, which seems to me to be true and proper. I am also willing to call the Apocryphal texts deuterocanon, though they do not have the full authority of Sacred Scripture, rather a secondary authority. In sum:
        Belgic Confession of Faith: Article VI – The Difference between the Canonical and Apocryphal Books.
        “We distinguish those sacred books from the apocryphal, viz: the third and fourth books of Esdras, the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Jesus Sirach, Baruch, the Appendix to the book of Esther, the Song of the Three Children in the Furnace, the History of Susannah, of Bel and the Dragon, the Prayer of Manasseh, and the two books of the Maccabees. All of which the Church may read and take instruction from, so far as they agree with the canonical books; but they are far from having such power and efficacy that we may from their testimony confirm any point of faith or of the Christian religion; much less may they be used to detract from the authority of the other, that is, the sacred books.”

        • Jerome, Athanasius, Cyril, and Origen did not accept them, while St. Augustine didn’t even accept the same ones as the Roman Catholics do. For example, he included first Esdras. But Augustine was not a Hebrew scholar.

          • Jerome, Athanasius, Cyril, and Origen did not accept them, while St. Augustine didn’t even accept the same ones as the Roman Catholics do.

            I find it strange when Protestants cite Jerome, the guy who submitted to the judgement of the Church when writing the Vulgate. Besides that, you’re painting with too broad a brush. For example, Athanasius did affirm Lamentations, Baruch, and the Epistle of Jeremiah… so he can’t really be held up as rejecting the Deuterocanon. For a finer analysis for each father, please check out this post.

            For example, he included first Esdras. But Augustine was not a Hebrew scholar.

            What difference would that make? What would Hebrew scholars say which would invalidate Augustine’s decisions? Do scholars determine the canon or the Church?

            By the way, out of all the Fathers, only two spoke both Hebrew and Greek (Jerome and Origen).

        • Why is this incorrect? Deutero means “secondary,”

          …and Deuteronomy means “Second Law”… that doesn’t make it less in authority.

          The deuterocanonical texts are of secondary authority to Sacred Scripture.

          You need to substantiate this claim because it’s not the view of the majority of Christians (the Catholic and Orthodox Churches).

          • Firstly, even Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians have a different canon (if I am not mistaken, Orthodox canon has three additional books), the New Testament refer to any apocryphal books as part of Scripture. None of the church councils in the first four centuries of Christian history endorsed apocryphal books. Roman Catholic Church even didn’t officially recognize the Apocrypha as Sacred Scripture until the Council of Trent 1546, but they did so in support of unorthodox teachings including prayers for the dead, and salvation by works. Therefore, we cannot accept them as Sacred Scripture, just because they were found in the Septuagint, and much of the later early church recognised them.

          • Firstly, even Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians have a different canon (if I am not mistaken, Orthodox canon has three additional books)

            They are different. However, the Catholic Church has not rejected the wider canon – only affirmed what must be recognized universally in the Catholic Church – Eastern Rite Catholics typically use the wider canon.

            Regardless, both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, despite not being in full communion for over a millennium, both have a larger canon than most Protestants. This proves that it wasn’t the Catholics which added the books at Trent, but Protestants who removed them.

          • the New Testament refer to any apocryphal books as part of Scripture

            I’m assuming you’re missing a “not” in there somewhere. You’re affirming that the Deuterocanonical books aren’t referred to by the New Testament.

            There are three problems with this:

            1. Although there are no direct quotations, there are many strong allusions to the deuterocanonical texts in the New Testament. For example, the Nestle Aland Critical Apparatus lists Maccabees as being referenced in the New Testament. The following verse comes from a passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews where the author is recounting the great heroes of the Old Testament:

            …For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets— who through faith conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, received promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched raging fire, escaped the edge of the sword, won strength out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life. – Hebrews 11:32-35

            The only place in the Old Testament which speaks of someone being tortured, refusing to give up their faith, dying rather than recanting, is found in the deuterocanon:

            …When he too had died, they maltreated and tortured the fourth in the same way. And when he was near death, he said, “One cannot but choose to die at the hands of men and to cherish the hope that God gives of being raised again by him. But for you there will be no resurrection to life!” … – 2 Maccabees 6:18-7:42

            There are also several examples in the deuterocanon of prophecy of New Testament events.

            2. The New Testament quotes Pagan writings (e.g. Acts 17:22-31). Does that mean these Pagan documents should be considered as Scripture? Clearly, being quoted in the Bible doesn’t automatically mean it’s Scripture.

            3. There are many Old Testament books not quoted in the New Testament, but they’re still considered Scripture:

            Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Nahum, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon.

            As we can see, an Old Testament book doesn’t have to be quoted by the New Testament in order to be considered Scripture.

          • None of the church councils in the first four centuries of Christian history endorsed apocryphal books.

            This is both misleading and actually incorrect. It’s misleading because there were relatively few councils in the first four centuries and even fewer which referenced the canon. Which councils do you think addressed the canon and omitted any deuterocanonical book?

          • Roman Catholic Church even didn’t officially recognize the Apocrypha as Sacred Scripture until the Council of Trent 1546

            By this logic, the Catholic Church didn’t recognize the divinity of Christ until AD 325 and the divinity of the Holy Spirit until AD 381. Something doesn’t have to be defined in a council for it to be official Catholic teaching.

            From what you know of how the Church responded to Maricion, you should know that the Church typically defines doctrine when it is being challenged. When Martin Luther arrogated to himself the authority to start throwing books out of the Bible, the Church responded in the Council of Trent. Incidentally, it’s worth pointing out that they simply confirmed what had gone before, the canon of the Vulgate Bible and the decrees of other councils, such as the Council of Florence.

            …unorthodox teachings including prayers for the dead, and salvation by works. Therefore, we cannot accept them as Sacred Scripture, just because they were found in the Septuagint, and much of the later early church recognised them.

            Firstly, notice the circular reasoning – you throw out Maccabees because it contains “unorthodox teachings”. Well, if it’s Scripture, they are orthodox teachings and the unorthodox position belongs to those who reject it!

            Secondly, if you’ve read Church history, you should know that the Jews even before the time of Christ prayed for the dead. The Early Church continued that practice without interruption:

            “The faithful widow prays for the soul of her husband, and begs for him in the interim repose, and participation in the first resurrection, and offers prayers on the anniversary of his death” – Turtullian, Monogamy, (c. AD 213)

            Thirdly, the Catholic Church does not teach “salvation by works”, but she does teach the importance of works. Here is St. Polycarp in AD 130, quoting the Deuterocanonical book of Tobit, expressing the doctrine of the Early Church:

            When you can do good, defer it not, because “alms delivers from death”

          • Is it coincidental that both of the early churches’ Hebrew scholars both rejected the Apocrypha?
            And of course Jerome submitted to the Church; he was the minority, he was humble, and the Church was the authority in this case. Perhaps the church ought to have paid more attention to what he was saying, or to have invested more in Hebrew scholarship. In the post, it mentioned the Jews, who naturally are Hebrew scholars, don’t accept the Apocrypha–should we not look into this?

          • Is it coincidental that both of the early churches’ Hebrew scholars both rejected the Apocrypha?

            A common talking-point…but incorrect. If you had followed the links I sent you then you should know that both of them accepted some and disputed others. However, the really crucial point is that Jerome deferred to the “judgment of the churches” and translated the full Bible (which included the Deuterocanon). This was because he, quite rightly, didn’t arrogate to himself the authority to select the canon.

            he was humble, and the Church was the authority in this case.

            Are you saying he was wrong to humble and submit to the Church?

            Perhaps the church ought to have paid more attention to what he was saying, or to have invested more in Hebrew scholarship.

            Jerome favoured the shorter canon because he had been taught Hebrew by Hebrews! This is the second time you’ve brought up “Hebrew scholarship” – what exactly do you think Hebrew scholarship proves which is detrimental to the inclusion of the Deuterocanon?

            In the post, it mentioned the Jews, who naturally are Hebrew scholars, don’t accept the Apocrypha–should we not look into this?

            This seems like a very strange argument to me…

            Firstly, this objection assumes that there was a uniform belief in the First Century among the Jews as to what was and what was not Scripture. However, that was not the case. Different groups held to different canons. Which group had the authority to declare the canon? For example, the Saducces only considered the first five books of the Old Testament to be canonical. The Essenes appeared to have a far larger canon. The Palestinian Jews typically used one canon, but the Alexandrian Jews used the Septuagint (LXX), a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures which included the deuterocanonical books (the version of the Old Testament most quoted in the New Testament).

            Secondly, you’re talking about those who rejected Jesus. If they failed to recognize God’s Word in the flesh, why should we assume they’d reliably recognize God’s written Word?

            Thirdly, it would serve those who rejected the Messiah to have a smaller canon, thereby purging the faith of Gentile Greek, and avoiding awkward prophetic passages like Wisdom 1:16, 2:1, 12–22.

          • Deuterocanon means “second standard” or “second norm” which seams to me that it has secondary authority to the “first standard” or “first norm.” Deuteronomy is secondary law. We don’t even follow most of what’s in there.

          • Deuterocanon means “second standard” or “second norm” which seams to me that it has secondary authority to the “first standard” or “first norm.”

            That is not a correct understanding. While the term might evoke feelings in you relating to inferiority, “Deuterocanon” is the Catholic term for these books and it is Catholic teaching that these books are in no way inferior to the books of the Protocanon.

            Deuteronomy is secondary law. We don’t even follow most of what’s in there.

            I think you’re missing the point. I referenced Deuteronomy because it uses the same Greek root as Deuterocanon. Deuteronomy means “second law”. Just because Deuteronomy was the second law, didn’t mean that it was of lesser authority than the first law given to Moses. Likewise, just because the Deuterocanon is the second canon, doesn’t mean the books are of lesser authority.

        • I find it strange that you refer to Augustine’s later opinion regarding the Deuterocanon and then quote “On Christian Doctrine” because, in the very next paragraph, he lists what he regards as canonical…

          Now the whole canon of Scripture on which we say this judgment is to be exercised, is contained in the following books… Tobias… Judith, and the two books of Maccabees… one called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus

          St. Augustine is trying to supply a good rule of thumb of how to regard books that enjoyed mixed reception among the churches.

          More importantly though, remember that the Deuterocanon wasn’t the only collection which contained disputed books – the Protocanon did as well. For example, Eusebius tells us the same is true for the Book of Revelation and other books of the New Testament…

  • If I and a few others were the only ones rejecting the Apocrypha, then I would probably be proud to defy the whole church, but basically all protestants reject it, and my church, which states the Apocrypha is not Scripture, is my authority, under God. I will hold to them in this matter, until sufficient other matters are changed in my mind so that I fall under another authority. I believe you will agree. To be perfectly honest I (who haven’t studied it) find the arguments that Roman Catholics make are very good, even sometimes stronger than ours, as I said, I intend to be faithful to my church, when my church is in line with Scripture, and leave it when it is not. We all recognise certain books as Scripture, so I will choose to be firm and rest on those.

    • If I and a few others were the only ones rejecting the Apocrypha, then I would probably be proud to defy the whole church, but basically all protestants reject it, and my church, which states the Apocrypha is not Scripture, is my authority, under God.

      This is an odd appeal to authority – you’re talking about a minority of Christians and groups which didn’t exist until a millennium and a half after the Resurrection.

      Also, there was a point in time when Arianism was very popular in the Church – that doesn’t make it right.

      I intend to be faithful to my church, when my church is in line with Scripture

      Why give your fidelity to that Church in the first place? Can you trace it throughout history from Pentecost? Or does it spring into existence in the Sixteenth Century.

      Also, once again, we have circular reasoning, presupposing the canon in order to determine what is and isn’t Scripture.

  • Of course he wasn’t wrong to submit to church authority (he would be wrong if the church authority went against sacred Scripture) again he was humble. We should all be humble. But we also cannot comprimise Scripture. The reformers (and the reformed) believed that the 16th century church was going against Scripture, and needed reformed.
    If one is a Hebrew scholar, and is studying Hebrew subjects, naturally he would know more than Greek scholar knows about Hebrew subjects. This is elementary. However the Septuagint was Greek. You mentioned the Egyptians—the only Hebrews that, at the time accepted the apocrypha. But like you said, the Hebrews are not the authority. Ultimately, God is the authority, the Church under God. To me, it could go either way depending on how you argue (you have clearly beaten my arguments). But the Reformed Church, has much more authority to me, than the Roman Catholic, and so I accept their teaching.

    • Of course he wasn’t wrong to submit to church authority (he would be wrong if the church authority went against sacred Scripture) again he was humble. We should all be humble. But we also cannot comprimise Scripture.

      Again we’re at a circularity, as the very question at stake is: “What is Scripture?”

      The reformers (and the reformed) believed that the 16th century church was going against Scripture, and needed reformed.

      But again, what resulted wasn’t reformation, but schism and heresy (objectively so, because of conflicting doctrine among the various reformers).

      If Jerome wasn’t wrong when he submitted to the Bishop of Rome, why were the Fathers of the Reformation right when they refused to do likewise?

      This also begs the most important question in this entire discussion – by whose authority could they do this? Luther not only wanted to get rid of the Deuterocanon, but several disputed books of the New Testament, such as the Epistle of James because he couldn’t reconcile it with his new-fangled doctrine of Sola Fide. Did he have the authority to do this?

      If one is a Hebrew scholar, and is studying Hebrew subjects, naturally he would know more than Greek scholar knows about Hebrew subjects. This is elementary.

      Please spell out the argument you’re making: “A Hebrew scholar would know what is and isn’t Scripture because….”

      However the Septuagint was Greek. You mentioned the Egyptians—the only Hebrews that, at the time accepted the apocrypha.

      You do realize that the Alexandrians were Jews as well? They were just part of the diaspora.

      But like you said, the Hebrews are not the authority. Ultimately, God is the authority, the Church under God. To me, it could go either way depending on how you argue (you have clearly beaten my arguments).

      But if you support the Reformation, isn’t the authority of the Church is effectively meaningless because it may greatly err and may be freely rejected if it conflicts with my interpretation of the books the Church has given me.

      But the Reformed Church, has much more authority to me, than the Roman Catholic, and so I accept their teaching.

      But on what basis though?

      The question of historic continuity with the Early Church is incredibly problematic for the Reformed. As I’ve suggested at other points in this discussion, just try and find the first Christian to affirm Calvin’s canon, his doctrine of one-saved-always-saved, or many of his distinctives. You don’t find these until a millennium and a half after Pentecost. You have to admit that, if these were true, it doesn’t speak very highly to God’s provision, allowing the Church to be wrong on such crucial issues for the majority of her existence.

  • In response to the reply that starts:
    God has given us the canon of the Scriptures through the church. We both agree on that.
    Fine, but I think we disagree as to the meaning of at least two crucial terms in that sentence – “canon of the Scriptures” and “church”.

    “…and I’d say his admission is pretty problematic as he can’t actually say with certainty that the canon is actually correct!” I entirely agree! I wish I could ask him questions, but alas, I cannot. But there are others I can ask.
    What do we have if not faith. Nothing. It is the evidence. But at the same time, it is a very poor argument for why we have a different canon. This, I admit, is the only convincing argument I have heard against Sola Scriptura. You have puzzled me. I most definitely need to study this more.
    “Is it possible that He has pointed out that the Protestant canon is wrong?”
    Of course it is possible, but since the Protestants have not apparently noticed (I would think that the Holy Spirit would place it on the conscience on some of the Protestant leaders) it is not evident He has. You will say I decided that, but no, the leaders did. You see I do place trust in the church’s authority.
    As to the differences in faith, I think it is parallel. My whole foundation is Sola Scriptura. You have shaken the foundation, and therefore my faith. You see the Word is God, and you say I should keep trusting God, but how do I do that if I don’t trust the Word? But my faith in God is not gone, nor my faith Scripure. Like I have said, the Church can be wrong. Perhaps protestants were. Perhaps they were not. But as long as I am a protestant, would it not be wise to follow Protestant authority?
    As to updating my worldview, I will do so only in admitting that the Apocryphal texts might be Scripture. We might be wrong. But I must find that we are wrong in a good many other points before I can reject my protestant Church’s authority on this subject.
    “Sorry, but this is just another way of saying that you don’t accept Tradition.” No, but rather, it is saying that the visible Church can be wrong, though the Church composed of the spirit is right. The spirit is willing, the flesh weak. The Church is no longer the church when it disagrees with Scripture. What is Scripture, we must lean on the Church to know, I suppose.
    “if nobody is Pope, everybody is Pope.” Does this apply to the Orthodox Church? The Creeds and Confessions are rules of interpretation, so that we do not just interpret it how we feel. We have organizations like Ligonier Ministries who’s goal is the teach sound doctrine. Scripture is the final authority. The Church is there to in part interpret scripture. The pastor must guide the sheep to true doctrine, and protect it against the false. The reformers realized that false doctrine had invaded the Church (of course Satan is going to attack the church, of course he is going to imperceptably invade, of course. That is why we must in each generation, work out our salvation with fear and trembling, to be sure of our doctrine. More cannot be at stake. This is not just life and death, it is eternal life and death.

    • “…and I’d say his admission is pretty problematic as he can’t actually say with certainty that the canon is actually correct!” I entirely agree! I wish I could ask him questions, but alas, I cannot. But there are others I can ask.

      Why not just conclude that the position is logically incoherent?

      …at the same time, it is a very poor argument for why we have a different canon.

      Why not just conclude that the Protestant canon is wrong?

      This, I admit, is the only convincing argument I have heard against Sola Scriptura. You have puzzled me. I most definitely need to study this more.

      I have many more against Sola Scriptura 🙂

      When I was a Protestant, it was my favourite Protestant distinctive. However, I ultimately concluded that it was illogical, unworkable, ahistorical, and unscriptural. It’s illogical because it demands an authority outside of Scripture to identify the canon (i.e. an authoritative Church). It is unworkable for two reasons: (1) for the majority of history most Christians were illiterate (2) it has no way of solving interpretational disputes. It was ahistorical because it wasn’t practised by the Early Church. Finally, it’s unscriptural because although Scripture speaks highly of itself, it nowhere claims to be the sole infallible rule of faith.

      Of course it is possible [that the Protestant canon is wrong], but since the Protestants have not apparently noticed (I would think that the Holy Spirit would place it on the conscience on some of the Protestant leaders) it is not evident He has.

      Firstly, why would you assume that the Holy Spirit would protect the Protestant leaders from error? It sounds like you’re attributing some kind of indefectability to the large collection of groups which we call Protestantism.

      Secondly, why would you expect the Holy Spirit to correct Protestants if they were wrong, but then leave the historic Church alone for 1,500 years in their apparent error?

      Thirdly, what if the Holy Spirit corrected those Protestants who ultimately converted to Catholicism? In case you’re wondering, I’m thinking of people like John Henry Newman, G. K. Chesterton, and Thomas Merton. If you’d like to consider more recent converts, I’d suggest former Reformed ministers Scott Hahn and John Bergsma.

      You will say I decided that, but no, the leaders did. You see I do place trust in the church’s authority.

      Again, on what basis? Why them?

      As to the differences in faith, I think it is parallel. My whole foundation is Sola Scriptura. You have shaken the foundation, and therefore my faith.

      I would encourage you to think of the two as separate. One can have faith in Scripture and in Christ but without holding to Sola Scriptura – Orthodox and Catholic Christians have being doing that for two thousand years.

      You see the Word is God, and you say I should keep trusting God, but how do I do that if I don’t trust the Word?

      Did Jesus found a Church? Did He promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it? If so, then that’s something you can definitely trust. You can trust her when she gives you the canon of Scripture and you can trust here when she teaches you what it means.

      But as long as I am a protestant, would it not be wise to follow Protestant authority?

      What I am prompting you to do is look at the presuppositions and foundations which precede your selection of an authority.

      As to updating my worldview, I will do so only in admitting that the Apocryphal texts might be Scripture. We might be wrong. But I must find that we are wrong in a good many other points before I can reject my protestant Church’s authority on this subject.

      Then mustn’t you also say that some of the New Testament books might not be Scripture?

      “Sorry, but this is just another way of saying that you don’t accept Tradition.” No, but rather, it is saying that the visible Church can be wrong, though the Church composed of the spirit is right. The spirit is willing, the flesh weak. The Church is no longer the church when it disagrees with Scripture. What is Scripture, we must lean on the Church to know, I suppose.

      Like Church authority, you only seem to accept Sacred Tradition if you agree with it – that’s not much of an authority. You do realize that the canon of Scripture is itself Sacred Tradition? By what standard is that judged? It can’t be by Scripture since that’s the very question being addressed.

      “if nobody is Pope, everybody is Pope.” Does this apply to the Orthodox Church?

      The Orthodox Church still has valid Apostolic Succession and Sacraments and hold at least to the Early Ecumenical councils. They are in schism from the Catholic Church – not heresy.

      The Creeds and Confessions are rules of interpretation, so that we do not just interpret it how we feel.

      But from your point of view they’re just man-made and not binding, so they can be freely rejected.

      We have organizations like Ligonier Ministries who’s goal is the teach sound doctrine.

      So an organization founded in 1971 to affirm doctrine which was first invented in 1536? Once again, I point you back to the Early Church – would you have been at home there?

      Scripture is the final authority.

      Given what you’ve said, the final authority is your particular organization’s interpretation of what they consider to probably be Scripture…but there’s no guarantee that they’re right.

      The Church is there to in part interpret scripture. The pastor must guide the sheep to true doctrine, and protect it against the false.

      Not really, given that under your system the Church can be horrendously wrong. They’re no better off than the individual Protestant and his Bible.

      The reformers realized that false doctrine had invaded the Church (of course Satan is going to attack the church, of course he is going to imperceptably invade, of course.

      What if the Reformers where the false teachers? Look at their fruit. They contradicted each other all over the place, resulting in utter doctrinal chaos. A Protestant might try to argue that Christians believed heretical teachings prior to the Reformation. However, the only thing which is guaranteed is that, given the long list of doctrinal disagreements, lots of Christians certainly held to heresy following the Reformation.

      That is why we must in each generation, work out our salvation with fear and trembling, to be sure of our doctrine.

      Paul isn’t talking about reinterpreting doctrine in that passage. He’s talking about our cooperation with grace (a tricky subject if grace is indeed irresistible and our salvation irrevocable). Instead, I’d point you to earlier in the letter where he exhorts the Philippians to unity.

  • “Why not just conclude that the position is logically incoherent?” If the reformers (very logical people) thought it was logical, there must be some reason that I haven’t learned. I haven’t studied enough perhaps. “The best swordsman in the world may be disarmed by a trick that’s new to him.” And in this case, I am not even a good swordsman. I haven’t concluded that the Protestant canon is wrong, but that it may be wrong. I see your argument, you may be right, it certainly sounds so. But until the rest of the solas fall apart I must remain Protestant.
    I believe the Holy Ghost was working in the Reformation. God’s plan is perfect, but we don’t know it. “Who hath known the mind of the Lord…?” So you can argue both ways. You shall know the tree by its fruit. My major problem with Roman Catholics is not with their scripture, but their doctrine, which is hardly what we are arguing. I place trust in the church I do because I believe by faith it is in line with the word of God. Their confessions, are clearly evidenced by scripture. I was wrong when I said the confessions and creeds are the rules of interpretation. Scripture is the only final rule of interpretation. WCF 1.7 All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto
    all;(1) yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for
    salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other,
    that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may
    attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.(2)
    “I would encourage you to think of the two as separate. One can have faith in Scripture and in Christ but without holding to Sola Scriptura – Orthodox and Catholic Christians have being doing that for two thousand years.” I am not sure how to separate Solus Christus with Sola Scriptura (Or Sola Fide, Sola Gratia…)
    “Did Jesus found a Church? Did He promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it? If so, then that’s something you can definitely trust. You can trust her when she gives you the canon of Scripture and you can trust here when she teaches you what it means.” Once again, it is only the true Church if it aligns with Scripture, and, like you have pointed out, this leads to circular reasoning. The Church is not the Church without the Scripture, and where is the Scripture without the Church?
    I am not a Protestant because of our canon, I am a Protestant because of other doctrines. I don’t think these come into the discussion of canonicity, however.
    “Then mustn’t you also say that some of the New Testament books might not be Scripture?” Hence why you have, in a sense, shaken my faith (In other senses my faith is stronger than ever).
    “Like Church authority, you only seem to accept Sacred Tradition if you agree with it – that’s not much of an authority. ” No, that misses the entire point, the Scripture is the standard. Once again at the circle.
    “They are in schism from the Catholic Church – not heresy.” This seems to imply that what I believe is heresy. Is this because we do not hold the Roman Catholic Canon?
    “But from your point of view they’re just man-made and not binding, so they can be freely rejected.” Only can they be rejected on basis of scripture.
    “So an organization founded in 1971 to affirm doctrine which was first invented in 1536? Once again, I point you back to the Early Church – would you have been at home there?” Firstly, since the Reformation, we have always tried to spread true doctrine. Secondly, I believe (naturally) I would have been at home in the early Biblical church.
    “…but there’s no guarantee that they’re right.” the Scriptures are the guarantee.
    “Not really, given that under your system the Church can be horrendously wrong. They’re no better off than the individual Protestant and his Bible.” The Scriptures are the rule. I am redundant.
    As to the heresies, it is only by God’s grace we do not end in heresy. We must base our claims to non-heresy on the Word of God. Aside from that we are all in heresy.
    Catholics apply the “working out of salvation” as a proof against assurance. But perhaps it means beware false doctrine. And yes, we must, must, must be unified. If a house is divided against itself, how shall it stand. But neither can we unify with false churches.

    • “Why not just conclude that the position is logically incoherent?” If the reformers (very logical people) thought it was logical, there must be some reason that I haven’t learned.

      I find this a very odd position to take, given how much you’ve emphasized the fallibility of Protestant leadership. You admit that they’re fallible and I think I’ve shown their position to be logically incoherent. So, what would it actually take to convince you?

      You say that the Reformers were “very logical people”…as opposed to whom? The previous 1,500 years of Christians who developed all the key Christian doctrines such as the Trinity and the hypostatic union? Even referring to the Reformers as a group in this way is problematic because they conflicted on core doctrines. Ask each about baptism or the Eucharist and you’ll get wildly different answers, so some defective logic must have been at work somewhere. Even if we pick just a single Reformation Father, such as Calvin, we find some some very strange positions.

      But until the rest of the solas fall apart I must remain Protestant.

      Okay then, let’s talk Sola Scriptura! When that doctrine fell apart for me I knew I had to either return to Catholicism or go to Orthodoxy. Of course, your immediate problem is that we’re transitioning to this topic after you’ve conceded that the Protestant canon could very possibly be wrong, which immediately makes such a methodology very difficult. In my earlier comment I outlined the key problems with Sola Scriptura – it’s illogical, unworkable, ahistorical, and unscriptural. Why do you think it’s logical, workable, historical and scriptural? You could either answer here or on the series I wrote.

      I believe the Holy Ghost was working in the Reformation.

      A rending of the Body of Christ to a degree previously unknown to Christian history? Do you believe that schism is a sin?

      You shall know the tree by its fruit.

      Agreed and, because of the relentless contradictions among the Fathers of the Reformation, it’s impossible to deny that heresy abounded ever since that time – this is something even Luther admitted at the end of his life. He assumed that everyone would interpret Scripture in the same way he did. However, he and Zwingli couldn’t even agree what “This is my Body” meant.

    • My major problem with Roman Catholics is not with their scripture, but their doctrine

      But the one flows from the other, such as prayers for the dead and the place of works in salvation. If the Deuterocanon is Scripture, your doctrine has to change – you said that yourself.

      I place trust in the church I do because I believe by faith it is in line with the word of God.

      …but you’re not entirely sure whether Maccabees or Tobit are Scripture, and are willing to ignore the practice of the Early Church with regards to prayers for the dead and their understanding of salvation.

      Their confessions, are clearly evidenced by scripture. I was wrong when I said the confessions and creeds are the rules of interpretation.

      Their confessions offer an interpretation of Scripture and as I said, therefore not binding.

      Scripture is the only final rule of interpretation.

      But Scripture doesn’t interpret itself – this is the central problem of Sola Scriptura.

      WCF 1.7 All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all;(1) yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for
      salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may
      attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.(2)

      Yet… St. Peter says that some things are hard to understand and people twist them to their own destruction and, under the Protestant narrative, that’s pretty much what Christians did universally prior to the Reformation.

      I find the argument of Scripture’s perspicuity an odd one, particularly given Luther’s assertion of Sola Fide. The only place where the phrase “faith alone” appears in Scripture is in James’ letter where we’re told that we’re not saved by faith alone. If there were ever a truth that was “clearly propounded”, I would think it to be this! For this reason, Luther took it upon himself to add the word “alone” to his translation of Romans. His justification for this? He said:

      “You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word ‘alone’ is not in the text of Paul. If your Papist makes such an unnecessary row about the word ‘alone,’ say right out to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’ and say: ‘Papists and asses are one and the same thing.’ I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek text, it was not necessary for the Papists to teach me that.

    • “I would encourage you to think of the two as separate. One can have faith in Scripture and in Christ but without holding to Sola Scriptura – Orthodox and Catholic Christians have being doing that for two thousand years.” I am not sure how to separate Solus Christus with Sola Scriptura (Or Sola Fide, Sola Gratia…)

      The solution is easy – start reading the Early Church Fathers. They cited Scripture as an authority… just not the only authority. They knew that Christ was the Good Shepherd…but that He appointed men to shepherds on His behalf.

      “Did Jesus found a Church? Did He promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it? If so, then that’s something you can definitely trust. You can trust her when she gives you the canon of Scripture and you can trust here when she teaches you what it means.” Once again, it is only the true Church if it aligns with Scripture, and, like you have pointed out, this leads to circular reasoning.

      The problem here is that you keep conflating “Scripture” with “my denomination’s Sola Scriptura interpretation of a subset of the canon”. These two things are not the same.

      The Church is not the Church without the Scripture, and where is the Scripture without the Church?

      The Church absolutely is the Church without Scripture! The New Covenant and the Church proceeded the writing of the New Testament by many years.

      I am not a Protestant because of our canon, I am a Protestant because of other doctrines. I don’t think these come into the discussion of canonicity, however.

      But the one flows from the other, especially if one adopts the 16th Century doctrine of Sola Scriptura. We’ve actually already come across two doctrines already – prayer for the dead and the role of works in salvation. Despite clear attestation to both in the practice of the Early Church, you’re willing to reject them.

      “Like Church authority, you only seem to accept Sacred Tradition if you agree with it – that’s not much of an authority. ” No, that misses the entire point, the Scripture is the standard. Once again at the circle.

      No, that is the entire point. An authority which can just be ignored isn’t much of an authority. Also, your standard isn’t clear – in order to be accepted, must Sacred Tradition be affirmed in (your understanding of your subset of) Scripture, or must it simply not contradict (your understanding of your subset of) Scripture?

      What do you do when the Sacred Tradition in the Church is universal and it contradicts (your understanding of your subset of) Scripture? Is it more likely that the entire Church has been wrong for over a millennium, or that your interpretation is off-base?

      • I know he appointed shepherds, but the shepherds cannot have been infallible.
        The Church is based upon the Word. How then can the Church exist without Scripture? Before the NT was written the Church had the apostles.
        Your arguments are good. This will require thought and prayer.

        • I know he appointed shepherds, but the shepherds cannot have been infallible.

          Was St. Peter infallible when he wrote his two epistles?

          The Church is based upon the Word. How then can the Church exist without Scripture? Before the NT was written the Church had the apostles.

          That would still mean that the Church pre-existed the New Testament and existed without it.

          What is the significance of having Apostles? Were they infallible? You’re identifying that the Early Church has authority (this is why I suggested that thought experiment earlier about the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15). Why would Christ give that authority to His Church, only to have it be gone in the first generation? The Church had *more* issues to face in the subsequent centuries, not fewer (not least of which, the Canon of Scripture).

          Your arguments are good. This will require thought and prayer.

          They were the arguments which drove me back to the Catholic Church. I’ll be ready to pick this back up whenever you’d like.

          • We know St. Peter wasn’t always right. St. Paul talks about his Judaizing, and had to tell him he was wrong. Now the apostles were the authority, they knew Jesus personally, face-to-face, and they essentially founded the church. The Scriptures are infallible because God wrote them with the hands and minds of His servants.

          • We know St. Peter wasn’t always right.

            The question wasn’t whether St. Peter was always right – the question was whether he was infallible when he wrote his two epistles.

            The distinction is important because the Catholic claim isn’t that the Church is infallible in everything she teaches, or that the Pope is infallible in everything he casually mentions. There are specific conditions which must be fulfilled in both cases.

            St. Paul talks about his Judaizing, and had to tell him he was wrong.

            St. Peter had been the first Apostle to bring Gentiles into the Church (Cornelius and co). He also clearly articulated orthodoxy at the Council of Jerusalem (interestingly, it’s him who brings the debate to a resolution).

            What happens in the Galatians incident is that, while St. Peter had previously talked-the-talk, he was no longer walking-the-walk. He preached that the Gentiles should be accepted as they were, but his behaviour was no longer matching what he said. It was a moral failture and the difference between infallibility and impeccability.

            Paul is citing this incident to draw attention to the fundamental importance of the issue – so important that he even confronted Peter when he was showing preference to the Jewish believers.

            Now the apostles were the authority, they knew Jesus personally, face-to-face, and they essentially founded the church.

            Nit-pick: Jesus did the founding – they were the foundation (Ephesians 2:20, Matthew 16:18).

            However, the question still stands – why would Jesus endow his Apostles with authority, and one Apostle in particular, when that authority was to die with them. As I said, the canon hadn’t been assembled yet, the nature of Christ and the Trinity still needed to be worked out…

            Also, the New Testament doesn’t talk like authority died with the Apostles. They replaced Judas after he died, quoting the Psalm “Let another man take his office [Greek: episkope]” (episcopacy). The Early Church Fathers didn’t think it died out either, affirming that the Apostles passed on their mantle to the Bishops:

            Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, since they had obtained a perfect foreknowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.
            – 1 Clement to the Corinthians 42:4–5; 44:1–2 (AD 97).

            The Scriptures are infallible because God wrote them with the hands and minds of His servants.

            True, but it’s not like the Muslim claim that the Qur’an was simply dictated to Muhammad. In the New Testament, the human authors were still actual authors. If you pick up a letter, you can tell whether it was written by Paul or Peter or John simply from the style. However, as they were writing, the Holy Spirit inspired them and protected them from error. If He could do that in this case, why couldn’t he doe it in other situations?

    • “They are in schism from the Catholic Church – not heresy.” This seems to imply that what I believe is heresy. Is this because we do not hold the Roman Catholic Canon?

      There would be some careful distinctions needed to be made regarding the term “heresy”, but I think it’s just sufficient to say that many doctrines came into existence at the Reformation which directly reject the teaching of the Catholic Church. At its essence, you’re rejecting the authority of the Catholic Church.

      “I should not believe the gospel unless I were moved to do so by the authority of the Catholic Church” – St. Augustine

      “But from your point of view they’re just man-made and not binding, so they can be freely rejected.” Only can they be rejected on basis of scripture.

      Again… they’re just interpretations of Scripture. I could very easily build a Scriptural case against something like the Westminster Confession (although I’d also have to address both Sola Scriptura and the reduced canon as well).

      “So an organization founded in 1971 to affirm doctrine which was first invented in 1536? Once again, I point you back to the Early Church – would you have been at home there?” Firstly, since the Reformation, we have always tried to spread true doctrine.

      Nobody doubts the sincerity of the Reformation Fathers – that doesn’t make them right though.

      Secondly, I believe (naturally) I would have been at home in the early Biblical church.

      But have you taken a look at what the Early Church believed? Have you seen how they operated? I’ve given plenty of quotations throughout this exchange from Church Fathers that you would simply *have* to have a problem with… and yet these are the same people you’re looking to for the discernment of the canon.

      As an aside, Calvin rejected the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch. I quoted him earlier in reference to the authority of the Bishops. Here’s what Calvin said:

      With regard to what they pretend as to Ignatius, if they would have it to be of the least importance, let them prove that the apostles enacted laws concerning Lent, and other corruptions. Nothing can be more nauseating, than the absurdities which have been published under the name of Ignatius; and therefore, the conduct of those who provide themselves with such masks for deception is the less entitled to toleration.

      Calvin had to reject Ignatius because he described a Church in AD 107 which looked far too Catholic. However, modern Protestant scholarship has actually vindicated the authenticity of (the Middle Recension of) Ignatius’ letters. You can find my abbreviated version of them here.

      “…but there’s no guarantee that they’re right.” the Scriptures are the guarantee.

      Again, the Scriptures need to be interpreted and Scripture itself says that it’s not always easy and people can do it to their own detriment.

      “Not really, given that under your system the Church can be horrendously wrong. They’re no better off than the individual Protestant and his Bible.” The Scriptures are the rule. I am redundant.

      Again… the Scriptures need to be interpreted. You have said that your Church can err. The Protestant conception of history is that the Church did err, greatly, and early.

      As to the heresies, it is only by God’s grace we do not end in heresy. We must base our claims to non-heresy on the Word of God. Aside from that we are all in heresy.

      St. Augustine said that every heretical group quotes the Bible. Therefore, simply citing a prooftext is not sufficient to stay out of heresy. It must be interpreted correctly.

      Catholics apply the “working out of salvation” as a proof against assurance. But perhaps it means beware false doctrine.

      The text doesn’t suggest it’s anything to do with false doctrine. The context of that entire chapter relates to personal conduct and Church unity.

      Here we have a passage where the “clear meaning” doesn’t fit very well with Calvinism at all, you have to admit that. If TULIP is true, Paul’s comment makes no sense. That’s why you don’t find a single Christian for the first thousand years of the Church teaching anything like once-saved-always-saved. A few years ago, Trent, who went to my parish, debated the well-known Calvinist debater, Dr. James White, on this very subject.

      And yes, we must, must, must be unified. If a house is divided against itself, how shall it stand.

      How many denominations were there before the Reformation and how many were there afterwards?

      • I read your article, (most of it, haven’t finished it yet) and found it very interesting. Still, I would much rather lean on the Bible than on Church Tradition when it comes to key doctrinal issues (such as justification). Realize, Calvin may have been right about Ignatius.
        We believe, everything necessary to know, doctrinally, is contained in the Bible, and can be interpreted by the Bible. The Church isn’t always right in its doctrine, interpretation, or tradition. You’ve said before that the only time Protestants meantion Mary is at Christmas (I would also add, at Easter, and when the other passages including Mary are discussed) that is because that is the only time the Bible meantions Mary. Same with other doctrines. Perhaps Protestant’s Worship is bare, if so, the Bible is bare.
        As to Calvinism, Augustine, Aquinas, Molin, and others would agree largly with Calvin it seems. Not to meantion St. Paul, St. John, and the Lord Himself (John 6:44).
        Phillipians 1:6 For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus. (I’ve been meaning to watch Dr. White’s debate with Mr. Horn for some time now.)
        As to the many denominations, that cannot be good entirely, still the fact is that the people are studying the Word of God for themselves, and though they may interpret it wrongly, at least they are reading the Word.

        • I read your article, (most of it, haven’t finished it yet) and found it very interesting. Still, I would much rather lean on the Bible than on Church Tradition when it comes to key doctrinal issues (such as justification).

          Three problems with this:

          (1) That’s not how the Early Church operated
          (2) The Canon of Scripture is *itself* Church Tradition
          (3) Scripture doesn’t interpret itself – it has to be interpreted by *someone*. You’re just choosing an interpretative tradition which dates back to the 16th Century.

          Realize, Calvin may have been right about Ignatius.

          All I’ll say is:

          (1) modern Protestant scholarship thinks he was wrong
          (2) Calvin’s rejection of Ignatius shows his own bias

          We believe, everything necessary to know, doctrinally, is contained in the Bible, and can be interpreted by the Bible.

          (1) Do you have a Scripture verse for that? Does it also specify which canon of the Bible contains all this necessary information?
          (2) Again, the Bible doesn’t interpret itself.

          The Church isn’t always right in its doctrine, interpretation, or tradition.

          So if the Church could get the wrong canon and interpret it incorrectly, how is it the pillar and foundation of the truth?

          You’ve said before that the only time Protestants meantion Mary is at Christmas (I would also add, at Easter, and when the other passages including Mary are discussed) that is because that is the only time the Bible meantions Mary.

          No it isn’t – she’s mentioned both during Christ’s ministry and at Pentecost.

          (The Mary mentioned at Easter is typically Mary Magdalene)

          Same with other doctrines. Perhaps Protestant’s Worship is bare, if so, the Bible is bare.

          Which begs the question – was this meant to be the sum total of what Christ gave to the Church? Must we limit our understanding of the Eucharist to Paul’s brief mentions about it to the Corinthians, despite that it was celebrated for years before and after, throughout the Empire?

          As to Calvinism, Augustine, Aquinas, Molin, and others would agree largly with Calvin it seems.

          I don’t think James White or Jeff Durbin would agree with that!

          Not to meantion St. Paul, St. John, and the Lord Himself (John 6:44).

          Again, just because someone can cite Scripture, doesn’t mean that their ideas are Scriptural.

          Phillipians 1:6 For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus. (I’ve been meaning to watch Dr. White’s debate with Mr. Horn for some time now.)

          Okay… Are you trying to use this verse to say that none of the members of the Philippian Church apostatized?

          As to the many denominations, that cannot be good entirely, still the fact is that the people are studying the Word of God for themselves, and though they may interpret it wrongly, at least they are reading the Word.

          So you think it’s preferable for people to decide for themselves what Scripture says, even if parts of it are hard to understand and they twist it to their own destruction?

          Is schism a sin?

          • We talk about Mary the amount the Bible talks about Mary. In the parenthesis I said we talked about her at Easter and at the other times she is mentioned in Scripture, this includes during Jesus’ ministry (such as the wedding at Nain; but also before his ministry, when in Luke it talks about Jesus in the Temple, and also mentions Mary). Mary is mentioned at Easter when the Lord says to Mary “Behold thy son” and also she went to his tomb, if I am not mistaken.
            To be safe, we generally use the Regulative Principle of Worship (as a guideline, not a rule). If Christ intended more for the Church, why would it not be included in Sacred Scripture?
            “I don’t think James White or Jeff Durbin would agree with that!” I said largely, not entirely.
            I cited Phil. 1:6 as evidence for the preservation of the saints.
            Schism, may or may not be a sin. It would be a sin if we are at each others throats, rather than lovingly disagreeing.

          • We talk about Mary the amount the Bible talks about Mary.

            So the Bible talks about things in direct relation to their importance? What makes you think that the Bible does this? I think that’s a problematic heuristic.

            (Although, if one actually talks about Mary during Advent, Christmas, Easter, Pentecost, as well as during “Ordinary Time” which covers Jesus’ ministry, that’s pretty much the entire liturgical year covered!)

            To be safe, we generally use the Regulative Principle of Worship (as a guideline, not a rule). If Christ intended more for the Church, why would it not be included in Sacred Scripture?

            Three massive presuppositions here…

            Firstly, Sola Scriptura.

            Secondly, that Scripture predates worship (it doesn’t).

            Finally, that the New Testament was intended to be Church Manual, which it most definitely isn’t. There’s a reason why The Didache was written so early in the life of the Church:

            (A) Jesus says to love your neighbour, but does that include the unborn?
            (B) The New Testament says to Baptize, but *how* exactly do we do that?
            (C) The New Testament says to celebrate the Eucharist, but is very light on details as to how to do that.

            A Church Manual like The Didache looks to answer these sorts of questions. In contrast, the New Testament epistles were mostly occasional letters responding to a particular issue in a particular congregation.

            “I don’t think James White or Jeff Durbin would agree with that!” I said largely, not entirely.

            Dr. White just had a debate with Dr. William-Lane Craig heavily criticising Molinism. I really don’t get the impression he’d agree that they’re “largely” the same, particularly given that Luis de Molina was a dreaded Jesuit fighting against the Reformation!

            I cited Phil. 1:6 as evidence for the preservation of the saints.

            I think that’s not a strong argument. I could be confident that a great congregation will go on to even greater things – but that’s not an iron-clad guarantee, particularly give everything else that Paul says…

            …do not boast over the branches… For if God did not spare the natural branches, NEITHER WILL HE SPARE YOU… Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, PROVIDED you continue in His kindness; OTHERWISE you too will be CUT OFF” – Romans 11:1-23

            “Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be BURDENED AGAIN by a yoke of slavery… You …have been ALIENATED from Christ; you have FALLEN AWAY FROM GRACE” – Galatians 5:1, 4

            “…he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him, PROVIDED THAT you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel” – Colossians 1:21-23

            “Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to FALL AWAY from the living God. But exhort one another every day . . . that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we share in Christ, IF ONLY we hold our first confidence firm to the END” – Hebrews 3:12-14

            Schism, may or may not be a sin. It would be a sin if we are at each others throats, rather than lovingly disagreeing.

            Do you have a verse to support that?

          • [Romans 11:1-23] This passage, in context, is talking about God’s covenant people Israel, verses His covenant children in the New Israel, as far as I can tell. If the Church (interestingly this is the Church of Rome, so even the Roman Catholic) goes astray in their doctrine, God will cut them off. Not sure that this applies to individuals.

            Why would you assume it’s not talking about individuals? But even if Paul is talking about groups of people being cut off, are groups not made up of individuals?

            Do you contend that Jesus is only talking about groups in John 15 as well? I don’t see anything in the text to suggest that.

            [Galatians 5:1, 4] This verse in context, is talking about the Liberty of Christians, and the Judaizing that the Galation Church had going on in it. “You who would be justified by by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

            Okay, but whichever way you cut it, Paul is talking about people who had previously received grace, set free and united to Christ as being “…BURDENED AGAIN… ALIENATED from Christ… FALLEN AWAY FROM GRACE”. If they had received grace, been set free and united Christ then they were saved, right? Are they still saved after they’ve fallen from grace, burdened again and alienated from Christ?

            [Colossians 1:21-23] So God has reconciled us to Himself, through Jesus’ blood, and I would assume that this verse, in context, is refferring to the Church and the covenant children of the church, the baptized, not falling astray, not necessarily the elect.

            You explained the verses prior, but not why there is a conditional (“PROVIDED THAT you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel”).

            [Hebrews 3:12-14] This is talking about wolves in the Church, leading the children of God astray. At least that’s what is seems to me.

            Okay, but once again you’re not addressing the aspects of the passage which is problematic. How could Christian brethren fall away?

            [1 Corinthians 12] I realize that this is referring to gifts, but I would think the different denominations have different gifts. If there were only Presbyterians, who would dance?

            I don’t see why you think this passage justifies “nice” schism. Do you think St. Paul had schismatic Christians in mind when he wrote this passage?

            [1 Tim. 2:8] [1 Timothy 6:3-8] [John 4:1-3] [2 Tim 4:3-4] [2 Cor 11:3-5] [Gal 1:6-10]

            Again, I don’t see why you think these passages justify “nice” schism. Paul didn’t want quarreling, this is true, he wanted unity and peace in the Church. It didn’t mean that he didn’t think doctrine was important – he does a good deal of arguing himself in the New Testament.

  • [We talk about Mary the amount the Bible talks about Mary.
    So the Bible talks about things in direct relation to their importance? What makes you think that the Bible does this? I think that’s a problematic heuristic.
    To be safe, we generally use the Regulative Principle of Worship (as a guideline, not a rule). If Christ intended more for the Church, why would it not be included in Sacred Scripture?
    Three massive presuppositions here…
    Firstly, Sola Scriptura.
    Secondly, that Scripture predates worship (it doesn’t).
    Finally, that the New Testament was intended to be Church Manual, which it most definitely isn’t. There’s a reason why The Didache was written so early in the life of the Church:
    (A) Jesus says to love your neighbour, but does that include the unborn?
    (B) The New Testament says to Baptize, but *how* exactly do we do that?
    (C) The New Testament says to celebrate the Eucharist, but is very light on details as to how to do that.
    A Church Manual like The Didache looks to answer these sorts of questions. In contrast, the New Testament epistles were mostly occasional letters responding to a particular issue in a particular congregation.
    “I don’t think James White or Jeff Durbin would agree with that!” I said largely, not entirely.
    Dr. White just had a debate with Dr. William-Lane Craig heavily criticising Molinism. I really don’t get the impression he’d agree that they’re “largely” the same, particularly given that Luis de Molina was a dreaded Jesuit fighting against the Reformation!
    I cited Phil. 1:6 as evidence for the preservation of the saints.
    I think that’s not a strong argument. I could be confident that a great congregation will go on to even greater things – but that’s not an iron-clad guarantee, particularly give everything else that Paul says…
    …do not boast over the branches… For if God did not spare the natural branches, NEITHER WILL HE SPARE YOU… Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, PROVIDED you continue in His kindness; OTHERWISE you too will be CUT OFF” – Romans 11:1-23
    “Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be BURDENED AGAIN by a yoke of slavery… You …have been ALIENATED from Christ; you have FALLEN AWAY FROM GRACE” – Galatians 5:1, 4
    “…he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him, PROVIDED THAT you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel” – Colossians 1:21-23
    “Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to FALL AWAY from the living God. But exhort one another every day . . . that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we share in Christ, IF ONLY we hold our first confidence firm to the END” – Hebrews 3:12-14
    Schism, may or may not be a sin. It would be a sin if we are at each others throats, rather than lovingly disagreeing.
    Do you have a verse to support that?

    Of course the Bible doesn’t talk about subjects relative to their importance, but possilbly, it talks about them according to their importance to us. For example, Jesus speaks more in the gospels about Hell than Heaven. Since I don’t believe that I, being born-again, will go to Hell, it isn’t as important to me as Heaven, where I will spend eternity, by God’s grace. But it is more important as a use of evangelization. Some will come by fear and trembling.
    The New Testament is not a worship manual. But it does contain everything we need to know about worship. Texts like the Didache are very helpful in their places, but they are not sacred (set apart) like Scripture is.(A) Jesus says to love your neighbour, but does that include the unborn?
    “(A) Jesus says to love your neighbour, but does that include the unborn?”
    Of course! No reason to think it should exclude them. (I suppose you are saying the Bible isn’t clear but the Didache is on this subject?)
    “(B) The New Testament says to Baptize, but *how* exactly do we do that?”
    In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Immersion is preffered but (like the Dadache said) other methods are permittable.
    (C) The New Testament says to celebrate the Eucharist, but is very light on details as to how to do that.
    True, therefore it doesn’t much matter the details, but rather that we are meeting together often to partake of the Holy Supper.
    The reason there isn’t specific details is because God didn’t think we needed them (in the OT He was pretty darn specific), and we have Christian Liberty so to be able to worship in varied ways. I love the Liturgy at my church, but I’ve been to excellent churches with far different ones. At my Church we take Holy Communion weekly, at others they take it quarterly. We are still brothers.
    “Dr. White just had a debate with Dr. William-Lane Craig heavily criticising Molinism.” I’ve seen this debate, and I used to be Molinist/compatiblist. My point was that the doctrines of Molinism are much more similar to Calvinism than the general RC’s semi-Pelagianism, and that even RC s have teachers with doctrines similar to Calvinism, citing St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Molin as examples.
    …do not boast over the branches… For if God did not spare the natural branches, NEITHER WILL HE SPARE YOU… Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, PROVIDED you continue in His kindness; OTHERWISE you too will be CUT OFF” – Romans 11:1-23. This passage, in context, is talking about God’s covenant people Israel, verses His covenant children in the New Israel, as far as I can tell. If the Church (interestingly this is the Church of Rome, so even the Roman Catholic) goes astray in their doctrine, God will cut them off. Not sure that this applies to individuals.
    “Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be BURDENED AGAIN by a yoke of slavery… You …have been ALIENATED from Christ; you have FALLEN AWAY FROM GRACE” – Galatians 5:1, 4. This verse in context, is talking about the Liberty of Christians, and the Judaizing that the Galation Church had going on in it. “You who would be justified by by the law; you have fallen away from grace.
    “…he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him, PROVIDED THAT you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel” – Colossians 1:21-23. This passage is quite interesting. Just before this it says, “and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.” (if you take this out of context, you could get universalism) So God has reconciled us to Himself, through Jesus’ blood, and I would assume that this verse, in context, is refferring to the Church and the covenant children of the church, the baptized, not falling astray, not necessarily the elect.
    “Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to FALL AWAY from the living God. But exhort one another every day . . . that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we share in Christ, IF ONLY we hold our first confidence firm to the END” – Hebrews 3:12-14. This is talking about wolves in the Church, leading the children of God astray. At least that’s what is seems to me.
    “Do you have a verse to support that?”
    `”Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus is accursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit…and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there re varieties of acrivities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone…the body is one and has many members… for in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit…If the foot should say “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body….If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing…that there may be no dividsion in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.” 1 Corinthians 12. I realize that this is referring to gifts, but I would think the different denominations have different gifts. If there were only Presbyterians, who would dance?
    “I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling” 1 Tim. 2:8 “If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander,evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and depraved of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. But godliness with contentment is great gain, for we brought nothing into the world and we cannot take anything out of the world.” 1 Timothy 6:3-8.
    “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. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.” John 4:1-3

    “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. 2 Tim 4:3-4.
    For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.” 2 Cor 11:3-5

    “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.”
    Gal 1:6-10
    “For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.” 1 Cor 14: 33

    Not convinced that that did the job, sorry for the flood of verses. I hope I didn’t rip them too far out of context.

    • Of course the Bible doesn’t talk about subjects relative to their importance, but possilbly, it talks about them according to their importance to us.

      That’s an assertion which needs to be justified.

      For example, Jesus speaks more in the gospels about Hell than Heaven.

      Actually, if that is our ultimate end, why doesn’t Jesus speak more about Heaven and Hell? He only mentions Hell once in Luke’s Gospel and only three times in Mark’s Gospel!

      Since I don’t believe that I, being born-again, will go to Hell, it isn’t as important to me as Heaven, where I will spend eternity, by God’s grace. But it is more important as a use of evangelization. Some will come by fear and trembling.

      So you believe that Scripture is primarily about evangelization? I don’t know how I’d attempt to justify that claim, or the assumption that Hell is a better evangelistic tool than Heaven.

      I find it strange that you feel assured of Heaven and yet allude to Philippians. It was to his favourite group of Christians that St. Paul said: “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling”. He thought Christians should have some fear and trembling too…

      The New Testament is not a worship manual. But it does contain everything we need to know about worship.

      How could you justify that claim?

      When St. Paul writes to the Corinthians about the celebration of the Eucharist, he had actually previously celebrated it with them. They knew more about it than what is contained in his epistles to them, right?

      Texts like the Didache are very helpful in their places, but they are not sacred (set apart) like Scripture is.

      You’ve said multiple times that you affirm Sacred Tradition (although if you’re Calvinistic, you’ve got to reject the Early Church’s universal teaching on Baptismal Regeneration). Well, here is a non-canonical work which predates much of the New Testament and we find no contradiction to its teaching on Baptism until 16th Century…

      (Of course, you’ve also got the problem that The Didache was one of those disputed books of the New Testament, but I think I’ve beaten that horse to death already)

      Of course! No reason to think it should exclude them. (I suppose you are saying the Bible isn’t clear but the Didache is on this subject?)

      That’s exactly my point. The Bible is not particularly clear on that subject.

      When I say something, you can ask me a follow-up question in order to clarify what I mean. You can’t do that with the Bible. The Bible is a document and, as such, can’t answer secondary questions. This is the problem every time someone says “The Bible teach that…”. Everything they say afterwards is an interpretation. It might be a good interpretation with solid hermeneutics and lots of Scriptural evidence. However, the Bible cannot confirm or clarify your answer – that takes a living authority – and in Church History we see the Church doing just that.

      In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Immersion is preffered but (like the Dadache said) other methods are permittable.

      On what Biblical basis can you affirm that the other methods are permitted? Scripture doesn’t specify and, no matter how deep one probes the Greek, it doesn’t unpack the modes of a valid baptism.

      (C) The New Testament says to celebrate the Eucharist, but is very light on details as to how to do that.
      True, therefore it doesn’t much matter the details, but rather that we are meeting together often to partake of the Holy Supper.

      This claim that the Bible not mentioning something means it’s not important is pretty incredible. Firstly, why would St. Paul have described the Eucharistic celebration in detail when it wasn’t in dispute? Also, consider how little St. Paul talks about Jesus’ life and miracles – does that mean they were unimportant? Finally, and most importantly, why would you assume that every important piece of information about Christian doctrine and practice be explicitly recorded in Scripture. Does Scripture say that’s the case?

      The reason there isn’t specific details is because God didn’t think we needed them (in the OT He was pretty darn specific), and we have Christian Liberty so to be able to worship in varied ways.

      Or…He founded a Church with Sacred Tradition and a Magesterium, not intending for Christians to adopt the Sixteenth Century doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

      At my Church we take Holy Communion weekly, at others they take it quarterly. We are still brothers.

      How often did the Early Church celebrate the Eucharist? How do you think St. Ignatius of Antioch would have responded if he had met a Christian who only wanted to receive “the medicine of immortality”, this “gift of God” only a few times a year?

      • “So you believe that Scripture is primarily about evangelization?” No, but isn’t that what Jesus was trying to do? Heaven is more important than Hell. Jesus spoke more of Hell than Heaven.
        “St. Paul said: “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling”. He thought Christians should have some fear and trembling too…”
        Christians must also work, (otherwise, their faith is dead), if you have not fruit of faith, then that is dead faith. We must be certain of our salvation, and if a Christian is not concerned about his salvation, he is not a Christian.
        “How could you justify that claim?”
        2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
        If this verse does not mean that Scripture is sufficient to make the man of God equipped for every good work (not discluding baptism, or Holy Communion).
        “You’ve said multiple times that you affirm Sacred Tradition” I don’t know whether I said I fully affirm Sacred Tradition (though it appears I may soon have to; ), but rather Church Tradition which is fallible (I make the distinction because you and I no doubt have different views on what Sacred Tradition is).
        “On what Biblical basis can you affirm that the other methods are permitted? Scripture doesn’t specify and, no matter how deep one probes the Greek, it doesn’t unpack the modes of a valid baptism.”
        You are correct, it doesn’t specify. It does allude, and so based upon these allusions, we are led to assume that different modes of baptism are allowed. We are never told that the amount of water used to baptised effects if it is “full” or “true” baptism. Passages lead us to believe that baptism was by immersion.
        “This claim that the Bible not mentioning something means it’s not important is pretty incredible.” 2 Timothy 3:16.
        “Or…He founded a Church with Sacred Tradition and a Magesterium, not intending for Christians to adopt the Sixteenth Century doctrine of Sola Scriptura.” That is what we are discussing. The Church is made up of fallible people like me. I may very well be wrong.
        “How often did the Early Church celebrate the Eucharist?” Daily, I think. Which is good. Very good. Maybe we should do the same. But if I am in prison (like Paul, Peter, etc.) and the elements are not available to me to partake of, does that make me less holy, or reduce God’s grace?

        • it does contain everything we need to know about worship… “How could you justify that claim?” [2 Timothy 3:16-17] If this verse does not mean that Scripture is sufficient to make the man of God equipped for every good work (not discluding baptism, or Holy Communion).

          Far too much is read into 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Even with your own exceptions, it runs into a bunch of problems…

          Being equipped for every good work doesn’t mean knowing all the details (practical and theological) regarding the Sacraments of the New Covenant (Apollos needed more instruction – Acts 18:24-25).

          Also, the Scripture mentioned in that passage is the Old Testament, not the New, which would mean that the Old Testament equips man for every good work, making the New Testament rather superfluous.

          Finally, too much shouldn’t be made of phrases like “every good work” – plenty of other passages speak in similar terms by the presence of a particular virtue in the life of the believer. For example, James says “…let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.” (James 1:4). If I interpreted James in the same way as you’re interpreting 2 Timothy, I could affirm Sola Steadfastess, since James seems to be saying that if I have steadfastness, I am “complete, lacking in nothing”!

          “You’ve said multiple times that you affirm Sacred Tradition” I don’t know whether I said I fully affirm Sacred Tradition (though it appears I may soon have to; ), but rather Church Tradition which is fallible (I make the distinction because you and I no doubt have different views on what Sacred Tradition is).

          Well, when you were talking about the canon you made repeated reference to the teaching of the Early Church, so you have to give it some level of credence, even if it is rather ad hoc (since you’re willing to reject the Church’s universal witness to Baptismal Regeneration).

          Sacred Tradition is what Paul talks about in 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

          (Warning: Some Protestant translations such as the NIV will translate the Greek word “paradosis” as “tradition” when it’s spoken of in a negative light and translate it as “teaching” when its in a positive light)

          You are correct, it doesn’t specify. It does allude, and so based upon these allusions, we are led to assume that different modes of baptism are allowed. We are never told that the amount of water used to baptised effects if it is “full” or “true” baptism. Passages lead us to believe that baptism was by immersion.

          What are these allusions regarding other modes?

          What are these passages which point to immersion? If it’s phrases like “when He was coming up out of the water”, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the person was dunked – it could be referring to their exit from the water source.

          However, here we have a really interesting test for Sola Scriptura. Scripture doesn’t specify something – do we have liberty to do what we want as long as we don’t contradict Scripture, or do we need a Scriptural affirmation? If so, how clear does that affirmation need to be? If your sufficiency claims about Scripture are true, shouldn’t God have made this clear?

          “This claim that the Bible not mentioning something means it’s not important is pretty incredible.” 2 Timothy 3:16.

          Once again 2 Timothy 3:16 is wheeled out and made to try and say what it doesn’t actually say.

          “Or…He founded a Church with Sacred Tradition and a Magesterium, not intending for Christians to adopt the Sixteenth Century doctrine of Sola Scriptura.” That is what we are discussing. The Church is made up of fallible people like me. I may very well be wrong.

          My point is that you’re making a bunch of assumptions about Scripture in order to affirm Sola Scriptura, rather than just looking at how the first generations of Christians practised their faith.

          “How often did the Early Church celebrate the Eucharist?” Daily, I think. Which is good. Very good. Maybe we should do the same.

          Often daily, but at least on Sunday. This was the principle act of worship and sacrifice.

          But if I am in prison (like Paul, Peter, etc.) and the elements are not available to me to partake of, does that make me less holy, or reduce God’s grace?

          The Eucharist is not the only way to receive grace or grow in holiness (although great efforts were made to bring the Eucharist to those in prison). The point is that, if the Eucharist is truly is a “gift of God” and “the medicine of immortality” (cf Ignatius of Antioch), why would I voluntarily restrict myself to a few times a year?

          • As far as I can tell, the James passage is referring to a different kind of steadfastness, based upon the greek.
            I don’t see why God would have secret traditions that are only passed down by word of mouth. It would only take one generation to utterly distort, change, or forget the traditions. Therefore, it seems to me, the text is simply saying “beware lest you fall into heresies; hold fast to what we taught you.”
            I think you should be taking Holy Communion weekly. My church does. But I don’t think it is necessarily sinful not to. When I went to a church that did it quarterly, the pastor said they did it that way to uphold the sacredness of the Table. So that it did not become mere ritual. I don’t think he was right about this, but neither do I think it was sinful.

          • As far as I can tell, the James passage is referring to a different kind of steadfastness, based upon the greek.

            A different kind of steadfastness? My point was that this passage says that if I have steadfastness I’ll be “perfect and complete, lacking in nothing”. This is the same kind of language as 2 Timothy 3:16, showing that you can’t read too heavily into that text in an attempt to affirm Sola Scriptura. That is not the purpose of 2nd Timothy and it’s not even talking about the New Testament.

            I don’t see why God would have secret traditions that are only passed down by word of mouth.

            They’re not secret – they are openly taught in the Church – this is what distinguishes us from Gnosticism.

            Notice that you’re starting with the presupposition that God would want to write a book… even though Jesus didn’t write one… didn’t tell His Apostles to write one… and the majority of them didn’t write anything… and of those who did, most works were occasional or were written decades later.

            It would only take one generation to utterly distort, change, or forget the traditions.

            Firstly, in oral cultures it takes longer than that – this is something William-Lane Craig often points out to Skeptics.

            Secondly, you realize that Scripture began as Sacred Tradition? Most scholars think it wasn’t written within forty years of the events, which is the duration of a Biblical “generation”.

            Finally, take a look again at how St. Irenaeus argues for the truth of the Catholic faith – through a succession of bishops throughout the world, each of which corroborating the other.

            Therefore, it seems to me, the text is simply saying “beware lest you fall into heresies; hold fast to what we taught you.”

            Not simply heresies, but falling away from the faith!

            When I went to a church that did it quarterly, the pastor said they did it that way to uphold the sacredness of the Table. So that it did not become mere ritual. I don’t think he was right about this, but neither do I think it was sinful.

            I bet he wouldn’t have been happy only renewing his marriage covenant with his wife once a quarter… 😉

    • My point was that the doctrines of Molinism are much more similar to Calvinism than the general RC’s semi-Pelagianism

      HOW?! Also, this sounds like a smear you’ve heard from some of your teachers. The Catholic Church refuted both Pelagianism and and Semi-Pelagianism before it was cool at the Council of Ephesus, back when those heresies were first invented.

      …and that even RC s have teachers with doctrines similar to Calvinism, citing St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Molin as examples.

      The fact that you’re saying three major theological schools of thought in Catholicism are “similar” to Calvinism shows that the “similarities” between them have to be in a VERY general sense. We might say that Arius’ theology and the Council of Nicaea were broadly similar since they both spoke about Jesus possessing divinity in some sense.

      • “The Catholic Church refuted both Pelagianism and and Semi-Pelagianism before it was cool at the Council of Ephesus, back when those heresies were first invented.” I think it’s far off topic to explain why the RCC is Semi-Pelagian, (I would be glad to, in another time and place) though they are refuted, somehow they have crept back into the Church. I have a RC friend who thinks Augustine’s teachings on sin are damnable heresies. The entire RC may not be this way, but they surely lean in that direction.
        Perhaps Molinism was a poor example, but you cannot deny that St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine leaned in a very similar direction as the Reformed doctrine teaches.

        • I think it’s far off topic to explain why the RCC is Semi-Pelagian, (I would be glad to, in another time and place) though they are refuted, somehow they have crept back into the Church.

          The Reformers made this kind of claim because it meant that they could call a heretic anyone who opposed their 16th Century theological novelties, such as Sola Fide.

          I have a RC friend who thinks Augustine’s teachings on sin are damnable heresies.

          All this tells me is that you have a Catholic friend who doesn’t really understand Catholicism.

          The entire RC may not be this way, but they surely lean in that direction.

          I don’t know how you could get that impression! Would you like to guess who is the most-quoted ecclesiastical writer in the Catechism of the Catholic Church? It is St. Augustine…and by a wide margin.

          Perhaps Molinism was a poor example, but you cannot deny that St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine leaned in a very similar direction as the Reformed doctrine teaches.

          It’d be interesting to know how much of Augustine and Aquinas you’ve read, or whether you’ve only read excerpts presented within the context of affirming Reformed theology.

          However, can’t you see how you’re looking at this backwards? The Fathers of the Reformation didn’t begin with a blank slate – they started with Catholicism and then made changes. They inherited our Christology. They inherited our Trinitarian theology. They inherited our canon and then ripped a few books out. They inherited our practices of worship and some just tweaked them and others ripped them apart wholesale. They inherited our day of worship, although some groups went back to Saturday…

          Any similarities between Catholicism and Reformed theology is because Reformed theology began with Catholicism. Calvinism doesn’t have a monopoly on concepts such as predestination and God’s sovereignty.

          • St. Augustine is also the most quoted person in Calvin’s Institutes.
            I have read a good amount of St. Augustine, though I have unfortunately not yet read much Aquinas. I hope, however, I have sufficient understanding of Thomist philosophy to knowledgably talk about it.
            “However, can’t you see how you’re looking at this backwards? ” I do see what you mean. We did away with what we couldn’t find in the Bible.
            “Reformed theology began with Catholicism.” Of course it did. We are still the Church, just the reformed church. It wouldn’t be wrong to call us reformed catholics.
            Good article by Mr. Akin btw

          • St. Augustine is also the most quoted person in Calvin’s Institutes.

            Oh, I don’t doubt it. Calvin quotes the Fathers a bunch when it suits him. When it comes to the question of Baptism though, he’s much more selective…

            I have read a good amount of St. Augustine, though I have unfortunately not yet read much Aquinas. I hope, however, I have sufficient understanding of Thomist philosophy to knowledgably talk about it.

            I’d thoroughly recommend looking at Pints With Aquinas. The early stuff in particular, as well as the stuff by Fr. Gregory Pine.

            “However, can’t you see how you’re looking at this backwards? ” I do see what you mean. We did away with what we couldn’t find in the Bible.

            …which is still putting the cart before the horse, since you should go back to the Church which predates the Bible.

            However, even then, you’re speaking like the Reformers were consistent – they weren’t. They each reinterpreted Scripture for themselves and accused the others of either (a) not fully shaking off their Catholic accretions or (b) departing from the ancient faith.

            “Reformed theology began with Catholicism.” Of course it did. We are still the Church, just the reformed church. It wouldn’t be wrong to call us reformed catholics.

            Would you call Arius or Pelagius a Reformed Catholic? They thought they were interpreting Scripture correctly…

            Good article by Mr. Akin btw

            Jimmy’s stuff is fantastic. If you haven’t listened to his wacky podcast Mysterious World, you should check it out.

    • Apologies for the mistakes in keying.
      Repying to the comment starting with “Why would you assume it’s not talking about individuals?”
      We (at least in the Reformed Tradition) make a distinction between Covenant Children (who may be called Christians: every Child of the Covenant is baptised). These covenant children may fall away. They are not necessarily elect. If they fall away they shall receive the greater damnation, I suppose.
      And about schism in the Church. You are right. It isn’t good, but it is necessary to divide from false doctrine. For what communion has light with darkness?

      • These covenant children may fall away. They are not necessarily elect.

        Earlier you seemed to be distinguishing between individuals and corporate groups who are cut off as though that made a difference. However, what you’re saying here is that it can be true for individuals as well. Okay, but don’t you claim to be able to be certain or your salvation?

        If they fall away they shall receive the greater damnation, I suppose.

        Under your theological system, why? Do you think they were regenerate?

        And about schism in the Church. You are right. It isn’t good, but it is necessary to divide from false doctrine. For what communion has light with darkness?

        This argument has been used by every heretic since the beginning of the Church though… In his personal, fallible opinion, he has concluded that the Church which Jesus founded is wrong and he is therefore justified in his actions.

        • It seems like you don’t understand the Reformed doctrine of covenant children. Covenant Children are those baptised children of believers (or really anyone who is baptised). We don’t believe the baptism is the instrument of salvation, but rather the admitting into the covenant. The covenant children are God’s, and since they know about God (assuming they have been properly catechised from birth up) and have been trained in the things necessary to believe in him that is all we can do to help them. They have no excuse, we have done our duty. God must work faith in them. They are not regenerate necessarily. When they have shown evidence of faith God is working in them, they go through the rite of confirmation.
          “… In his personal, fallible opinion, he has concluded that the Church which Jesus founded is wrong and he is therefore justified in his actions.”
          Well isn’t it your personal, fallible opinion that the Church ir right? You see, God must work in the hearts of His people. It seems He works in different ways. He’s not a tame lion.

          • It seems like you don’t understand the Reformed doctrine of covenant children. Covenant Children are those baptised children of believers (or really anyone who is baptised). We don’t believe the baptism is the instrument of salvation, but rather the admitting into the covenant. The covenant children are God’s, and since they know about God (assuming they have been properly catechised from birth up) and have been trained in the things necessary to believe in him that is all we can do to help them. They have no excuse, we have done our duty. God must work faith in them. They are not regenerate necessarily. When they have shown evidence of faith God is working in them, they go through the rite of confirmation.

            I have a reasonable grasp of it – I just don’t think it’s very coherent. The glaring issue is the fact that baptismal regeneration is universally taught throughout the Early Church, so to reject this is to demonstrate my point about there being no real difference between SolO and SolA Scriptura. If one is willing to reject the universal witness of the Church on this point, it’s basically an admission that Sacred Tradition is basically worthless because the entire church can err on the fundamental mechanism of salvation for over a millenium.

            If baptism doesn’t regenerate, in what sense are the covenant children’s God’s? From a Presbyterian point-of-view, there has been no change in the child’s soul. Also the whole idea of separating membership of God’s covenant and regeneration makes very little sense to me.

            “… In his personal, fallible opinion, he has concluded that the Church which Jesus founded is wrong and he is therefore justified in his actions.”
            Well isn’t it your personal, fallible opinion that the Church ir right? You see, God must work in the hearts of His people. It seems He works in different ways. He’s not a tame lion.

            This is why it’s different

  • “When it comes to the question of Baptism though, he’s much more selective…” He quotes the Fathers on Baptism too. He has (if I remember correctly) two lengthy chapters on Baptism in the *Institutes,* the longer of which he is defending Paedobaptism against the Anabaptists.
    I enjoy listening to Pints with Aquinas on occasion.
    “…which is still putting the cart before the horse, since you should go back to the Church which predates the Bible.” Can not the Church be wrong? Of course you’ll say then the canon could be wrong and therefore not infallible.
    “However, even then, you’re speaking like the Reformers were consistent – they weren’t.” Back to the point of everyone being his own pope. Of course when you interpret Scripture you will find yourself disagreeing where Scripture is vague especially.
    “Would you call Arius or Pelagius a Reformed Catholic?” As you could well tell me, by no means are they. Firstly, they don’t hold to the Creeds (at any rate Arius didn’t), and secondly, the Early Church condemned them as heretics.
    “The glaring issue is the fact that baptismal regeneration is universally taught throughout the Early Church, ” Definitely will have to look more into this, but assuming the Judgement is come, and the Sheep are divided from the Goats, you will not deny that many Goats will be baptized.
    We look at baptism the same way we look at circumcision. Were the souls of Esau or Ishmael changed at circumcision? It certainly doesn’t appear so. Certainly they were not regenerate. But they were still set apart (holy) children of God.
    “If baptism doesn’t regenerate, in what sense are the covenant children’s God’s?” 1 Corinthians 7:14 says that the children are made holy by the believing father, mother, or both. The main difference I can see between us is that you say they can lose their regeneration, we say not. In terms of final salvation, the Holy Children are not all saved are they? So in our view, baptism cannot be the instrument of regeneration because not all baptized are regenerate. Therefore we distinguish between degenerate, regenerate, and covenant children.
    This seems off-topic, however.

    • “When it comes to the question of Baptism though, he’s much more selective…” He quotes the Fathers on Baptism too. He has (if I remember correctly) two lengthy chapters on Baptism in the *Institutes,* the longer of which he is defending Paedobaptism against the Anabaptists.

      That’s my point – he’s very selective on this subject because there are no Fathers to whom he can appeal in his rejection of Baptismal Regeneration.

      “…which is still putting the cart before the horse, since you should go back to the Church which predates the Bible.” Can not the Church be wrong? Of course you’ll say then the canon could be wrong and therefore not infallible.

      Bingo 🙂 I’d also point out the ad hoc nature of Calvin’s acceptance of a subset of their canon and yet wholesale rejection of the Early Church’s long-established (and uncontested) belief and practice.

      “However, even then, you’re speaking like the Reformers were consistent – they weren’t.” Back to the point of everyone being his own pope.

      Exactly.

      Of course when you interpret Scripture you will find yourself disagreeing where Scripture is vague especially.

      Which begs the question as to whether Jesus willed His Church to operate on Sola Scriptura or whether He founded a Church with authority which could settle these issues.

      “Would you call Arius or Pelagius a Reformed Catholic?” As you could well tell me, by no means are they. Firstly, they don’t hold to the Creeds (at any rate Arius didn’t), and secondly, the Early Church condemned them as heretics.

      Creed and Early Church condemnation are interesting points…

      Regarding creeds, one can “affirm” a creed and not actually affirm what the Council Fathers meant by those terms. Two classic examples are later reinterpretations of “I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins” and “I believe in one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic church”.

      Secondly, had Calvin been alive in the early centuries, don’t you think they would have condemned him as a heretic for denying baptismal regeneration?

      “The glaring issue is the fact that baptismal regeneration is universally taught throughout the Early Church, ” Definitely will have to look more into this, but assuming the Judgement is come, and the Sheep are divided from the Goats, you will not deny that many Goats will be baptized.

      Sure, but belief in baptismal regeneration doesn’t mean that one remains permanently regenerate – no one-saved-always-saved here. As St. John says, there is sin which leads to spiritual death (1 John 5:16–17:).

      We look at baptism the same way we look at circumcision. Were the souls of Esau or Ishmael changed at circumcision? It certainly doesn’t appear so. Certainly they were not regenerate. But they were still set apart (holy) children of God.

      I’m not sure how you can be so sure that circumcision did nothing for Esau or Ishmael, unless you are assuming that receiving a covenant sign necessarily results in impeccability.

      You say you look at baptism in the same way as circumcision, but that begs the question: “What did circumcision achieve?” Did it not welcome the child into the God’s covenant?

      Regardless, as with much else, the New is fittingly superior to the Old, with the Sacraments of the New Covenant being infinitely greater than the signs of former covenants.

      “If baptism doesn’t regenerate, in what sense are the covenant children’s God’s?” 1 Corinthians 7:14 says that the children are made holy by the believing father, mother, or both. The main difference I can see between us is that you say they can lose their regeneration, we say not. In terms of final salvation, the Holy Children are not all saved are they? So in our view, baptism cannot be the instrument of regeneration because not all baptized are regenerate. Therefore we distinguish between degenerate, regenerate, and covenant children.

      Yeah, I think the problem stems from a rejection of baptismal regeneration and the belief that salvation can never be lost.

      “[E]ternal fire was prepared for him who voluntarily departed from God and for all who, without repentance, persevere in apostasy” – Irenaeus, Against Heresies, (AD 156)

      “they are led by us to a place where there is water, and they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn: In the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they receive the washing of water. For Christ said, ‘Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.’…The reason for doing this, we have learned from the Apostles” – Justin Martyr, The First Apology (AD 148)

      “A treatise on our sacrament of water, by which the sins of our earlier blindness are washed away and we are released for eternal life will not be superfluous…. Taking away death by the washing away of sins. The guilt being removed, the penalty, of course, is also removed…. Baptism itself is a corporal act by which we are plunged into the water, while its effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from our sins” – Tertullian, On Baptism (AD 200)

      “Of how much greater faith and salutary fear are they who . . . confess their sins to the priests of God in a straightforward manner and in sorrow, making an open declaration of conscience. . . . I beseech you, brethren, let everyone who has sinned confess his sin while he is still in this world, while his confession is still admissible, while the satisfaction and remission made through the priests are still pleasing before the Lord” – Cyprian of Carthage, The Lapsed, (AD 251)

  • I’ve reread Calvin’s first chapter on Baptism in the Institutes. And it seems you’re right: he doesn’t really quote the Church fathers on what baptism does (he does quote Augustine and Turtullian at least, but in refutation of falsities, not in support of his doctrine).
    “Baptism is the initiatory sign by which we are admitted to the fellowship of the Church, that being ingrafted into Christ we may be accounted children of God….The first object, therefore, for which it is appointed by the Lord, is to be a sign and evidence of our purification, or (better to explain my meaning) it is a kind of sealed instrument by which he assures us that all our sins are so deleted, covered, and effaced, that they will never come into his sight, never be mentioned, never imputed. For it is his will that all who have believed, be baptised for the remission of sins (*Institutes,* Calvin. Book 4, Chapter 15).”
    We are made, through baptism, children of God, ingrafted into the Body. (He goes on to say that it is not through the water’s virtue, but of the virtue of Christ’s blood). “For Paul connects together the word of life and baptism of water, as if he had said, by the gospel the message of our ablution and sanctification is announced; by baptism this message is sealed.” (Institutes, Book 4, Chapter 15). Just as circumcision, baptism is the seal of God’s covenant. By this seal we are God’s children. But, “We ought to consider that at whatever time we are baptised, we are washed and purified once for the whole of life.” Once. One could not be circumcised more than once, born again more than once, baptised more than once. You have still God’s seal whatever you do.
    But it does not necessarily mean regeneration. Of course the seal didn’t “do nothing for Esau and Ishmael”. But it didn’t save them. It wasn’t the instrument of salvation. The sacrifices may have been, but the circumcision was a seal: God’s mark saying “This is mine.”
    If our sins are washed away in baptism, why is that not sufficient? Why must they be absolved again, and again? Why would you not have to be baptized again and again if you can lose your status of salvation? You say (rightly) that the New Covenant is greater than the Old, but how is that if you can so easily lose the covenantship?
    Now as to salvation never being lost, suppose you are drowning and you are given a life vest, but soon after you take it off, and drown anyway. You were never saved. You could have been saved. You were nearly saved. But you are just as drowned as you were in the beginning. Likewise if you are saved from Hell and then end up in Hell, you were never really saved from Hell were you?
    Still, I suppose I believe in baptismal regeneration of the elect. The elect won’t take the life vest back off, and are saved.
    Interesting point about interpretation of creeds, and of course, I don’t think Calvin would have been condemned as a heretic (at any rate not in an ecumenical council, maybe a local one).
    Now this all may be wrong, supposing the Church who had authority to decide what is Canon still has authority in how to interpret the Canon.

    • But, “We ought to consider that at whatever time we are baptised, we are washed and purified once for the whole of life.” Once. One could not be circumcised more than once, born again more than once, baptised more than once.

      Sure, we’re only baptized once, but that does not follow that we are purified for the whole of life. Someone who is baptized can later sin greatly, even mortally according to St. John. Why would Jesus give His Apostles the authority to forgive sin if they weren’t meant to actually do it? Why would James talk about confession of sin if it didn’t actually achieve anything?

      Of course the seal didn’t “do nothing for Esau and Ishmael”. But it didn’t save them.

      I’m not claiming that being baptised is a guarantee of remaining in a state of grace for your entire life.

      Were Esaeu and Ishmael they told that circumcision would save them? Because we have definitely been told that about Baptism: “Baptism, which is like that water, now saves you” (1 Peter 3:21).

      If our sins are washed away in baptism, why is that not sufficient? Why must they be absolved again, and again? Why would you not have to be baptized again and again if you can lose your status of salvation?

      Because nowhere in the Scriptures or the Early Church was it taught that baptism absolves you of all future sins. A different sacrament was setup for dealing with subsequent sin…

      [The bishop conducting the ordination of the new bishop should pray:] God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . pour forth now that power which comes from you, from your Royal Spirit, …and grant this your servant, whom you have chosen for the episcopate… to offer to you the gifts of your holy Church, and by the Spirit of the high priesthood to have the authority to forgive sins, in accord with your command.

      – Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition (c. AD 215)

      You say (rightly) that the New Covenant is greater than the Old, but how is that if you can so easily lose the covenantship?

      It’s greater in power, but that doesn’t mean that it’s cheap grace whereby one performs a ritual (baptism, sinner’s prayer etc.) and then your ticket is punched and the cooperation of your will is no longer required.

      Now as to salvation never being lost, suppose you are drowning and you are given a life vest, but soon after you take it off, and drown anyway. You were never saved. You could have been saved. You were nearly saved. But you are just as drowned as you were in the beginning. Likewise if you are saved from Hell and then end up in Hell, you were never really saved from Hell were you?

      The problem here is that you’re limiting the idea of being saved to *final* salvation. St. Paul describes himself salvation in past, present, and future tenses.

      You were offered a means of being saved, you were temporarily safe, but you then chose to reject it and then died. Here’s a different analogy… Imagine someone is drowning, he’s fished out of the water into a boat, but as they’re being taken back to shore he jumps out of the boat and drowns. Was he saved? Initially, yes. However, he subsequently chose to reject that salvation and any other attempts to save him.

      Still, I suppose I believe in baptismal regeneration of the elect. The elect won’t take the life vest back off, and are saved.

      So you think baptism *does* regenerate, but only if that person is elect? I don’t think even Calvin would go for that.

      Interesting point about interpretation of creeds, and of course, I don’t think Calvin would have been condemned as a heretic (at any rate not in an ecumenical council, maybe a local one).

      I very much disagree! He was rejecting the UNIVERSAL teaching of the Church about the primary Sacrament of Initiation (among many other things). On what basis do you think the Fathers would say that’s okay?

      …supposing the Church who had authority to decide what is Canon still has authority in how to interpret the Canon.

      Indeed…

      • Of course confession of sin is useful. I don’t deny that. But I do deny that the regenerate can lose the faith, commit “mortal sin.” Otherwise they were not regenerate in the first place, even if they seemed to be.
        “Baptism, which is like that water, now saves you” (1 Peter 3:21). In the way that it is the washing away of our sins by Christs blood, yes. But the water is not so virtuous that it can save you from Hell. Only Jesus can do that.
        “It’s greater in power, but that doesn’t mean that it’s cheap grace whereby one performs a ritual (baptism, sinner’s prayer etc.) and then your ticket is punched and the cooperation of your will is no longer required.” This is NOT what we believe. We believe that the Grace is God’s, which cannot be cheap. We believe that not the “sinner’s prayer” or baptism save you, but God’s grace, through faith. We believe that true faith brings forth works.
        By your example, he was nearly saved. He was very close. But he still drowned. Salvation isn’t so cheap that it can be lost like that. Like being born. You can be born once, and only once, you cannot be born, and then go back into the womb and be unborn.
        “So you think baptism *does* regenerate, but only if that person is elect? I don’t think even Calvin would go for that.” Not in the literal sense. Baptism does not literally save you. It washes away your sins in a different way. It sets you apart as God’s child.

        • I do deny that the regenerate can lose the faith, commit “mortal sin”.

          So is St. John describing an impossibility then in 1 John 5:16-17 when he speaks about those whose sin leads to death? What is he talking about here?

          I won’t press the point about the many passages in Scripture which only make sense if it’s possible to fall from grace. However, I would just point out a conundrum which results from affirming that (1) You believe you are regenerate and (2) You believe that the regenerate cannot lose their salvation… what do you do about the ex-Christians who previously believed they were regenerate? I see only two possibilities:

          A. That (2) is incorrect and it is actually possible to lose your salvation (The historic Christian position)
          B. That those people were never saved to begin with, but thought they were. However, this means you can’t be certain of (1), that you yourself are regenerate. After all, how are you any different from those who later fell away from the faith?

          • 1 John 5:18 says this “We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him.” So in context, what do the former verses mean? The people who fall away are not truly regenerate. You shall know trees by their fruit: evil trees bring evil fruit.

            Finally, this also shall be the case; but it shall be at that time, in men also as it already is in the angels, when there cannot be any pride. Therefore the number of the saints, by God’s grace predestinated to God’s kingdom, with the gift of perseverance to the end bestowed on them, shall be guided thither in its completeness, and there shall be at length without end preserved in its fullest completeness, most blessed, the mercy of their Saviour still cleaving to them, whether in their conversion, in their conflict, or in their crown!

            Augustine, A Treatise on Rebuke and Grace, Chapter 40

          • 1 John 5:18 says this “We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him.” So in context, what do the former verses mean? The people who fall away are not truly regenerate. You shall know trees by their fruit: evil trees bring evil fruit.

            If one is already dead in sin and unregenerate, how on earth can one commit a sin “which is unto death”?! The text nowhere says “The people who fall away are not truly regenerate”. The very fact that the “brother” can spiritually die implies that he was previously spiritually alive.

            If you are interpreting 1 John 5:18 literally, wouldn’t that mean that you live a sinless life? To understand this verse, one can also look at where he first introduces this language in 1 John 3:6. John is using hyperbole and his point isn’t that being a Christian results in sinless perfection, but that Christian life isn’t dominated by grave sin. This is why in 1 John 1:9 and 1 John 2:1 he can speak about Christians confessing their sin.

            Regarding your quotation from Augustine, please don’t automatically assume that references to “predestination” or “sovereignty” necessitate Calvinism. Every major denomination believes that if someone perseveres to the end that it is by the grace of God. As a counterpoint, here’s what St. Augustine said alluding to 1st John in “On the Merits and Remission of Sins”, where we see something of the difference between Calvin’s and Augustine’s soteriology:

            Even now we are the children of God because we possess the firstfruits of the Spirit. However, since we are not yet fully saved or renewed, we are also children of the world. This explains why we are still able to sin. Insofar as we are sons of God by the regenerating Spirit, we cannot commit sin; and yet, if we say that we have no sin, we are only deceiving ourselves

        • “Baptism, which is like that water, now saves you” (1 Peter 3:21). In the way that it is the washing away of our sins by Christs blood, yes. But the water is not so virtuous that it can save you from Hell. Only Jesus can do that.

          This seems muddled. On the face of it, you’re saying two contradictory things, that baptism both saves and doesn’t save. The issue seems to be that you imagine we think that water by itself can wash away sins. That is not the historic Christian position.

          It is because of the action of Christ through the water that sins are remitted and new life imparted. It could be compared to the incidents in the Gospel when Jesus used mud (John 9:6) and spit (Mark 7:33) to bring about healing – it is not due to the healing power of mud and spit, but because these were the instrumental means by which he chose to communicate His grace. The instrumental means by which He chose to impart new life is Baptism.

          Here’s how the Early Church Fathers explained it. Firstly, St. Ignatius of Antioch connects the power of baptism to Christ’s own baptism:

          “Our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary according to the plan of God from the seed of David and by the Holy Spirit; he was born and was baptized so that by the passion he might purify the water.” – Ignatius of Antioch (AD 107)

          In his letter to Autolycus, Theophilus connects Creation and re-creation:

          “Moreover, those things which were created from the waters were blessed by God, so that this might also be a sign that men would at a future time receive repentance and remission of sins through water and the bath of regeneration” – Theopilus (AD 181)

          In his First Apology, Justin Martyr connects baptism with being born again:

          “[The catechumen] are led by us to a place where there is water, and they are reborn… For Christ said, ‘Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.’… The reason for doing this, we have learned from the Apostles” – Justin Martyr (AD 155)

          Finally, the lawyer Tertullian connects the physical/corporal and the spiritual consequences:

          “A treatise on our sacrament of water, by which the sins of our earlier blindness are washed away and we are released for eternal life will not be superfluous… Taking away death by the washing away of sins. The guilt being removed, the penalty, of course, is also removed… Baptism itself is a corporal act by which we are plunged into the water, while its effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from our sins – Tertullian (AD 200)

          • Of course I do not want to misrepresent your position, and I believe I have stated that my understanding of baptismal regeneration is that (under its belief) the water of Baptism is the instrument of salvation. I believe that, in the elect person, the water of baptism may be seen as the instrument of salvation inasmuch as it is the blood of Christ being sprinkled upon us as our Sacrifice. However, in line with the OT and what makes more sense based on Scripture, it seems to be more of a seal of God’s covenant with us, just as circumscicion was. Your quote from Theophilus fits quite nicely here.
            “Moreover, those things which were created from the waters were blessed by God, so that this might also be a sign that men would at a future time receive repentance and remission of sins through water and the bath of regeneration” – Theopilus (AD 181).
            If my assumption of the seal of God’s covenant is correct, then it is in line at least with all the quotes, but arguably the last is more tricky. If my assumption of baptismal regeneration of the elect is correct then the last poses no problems. That said, I still think the Covenant Seal fits perfectly and is Biblical, therefore that is where I stand.
            If baptism imparts new life, and you leave the flock (commit a mortal sin), you become once more dead. To be made alive again, why would you not need to be reborn?

          • Firstly, happy Christmas!

            my understanding of baptismal regeneration is that (under its belief) the water of Baptism is the instrument of salvation.

            What does “under its belief” mean? If it means that it doesn’t wash away sin unless I believe it does, how does that work out for infant baptism?

            I believe that, in the elect person, the water of baptism may be seen as the instrument of salvation inasmuch as it is the blood of Christ being sprinkled upon us as our Sacrifice.

            Is the person regenerate through baptism, or does that take place some other time?

            Your quote from Theophilus fits quite nicely here.

            I’m not sure why you think that this works in Calvin’s favour. Baptism isn’t the “sign” in the quotation, it’s the fulfillment, which brings about “remission of sins” and “regeneration”.

            If my assumption of the seal of God’s covenant is correct, then it is in line at least with all the quotes, but arguably the last is more tricky.

            Baptism is a covenant seal – that’s not under contention. The question is whether that’s all it is.

            If my assumption of baptismal regeneration of the elect is correct then the last poses no problems. That said, I still think the Covenant Seal fits perfectly and is Biblical, therefore that is where I stand.

            I’m not sure what you mean.

            If baptism imparts new life, and you leave the flock (commit a mortal sin), you become once more dead. To be made alive again, why would you not need to be reborn?

            Because you’re only reborn once, as the creed says, “one baptism for the remission of sins”. In the East, they’ll refer to Confession as “second baptism” but the ancient practice of the Church is return the penitent to a state of grace via Confession.

        • By your example, he was nearly saved. He was very close. But he still drowned.

          Nope, he was saved. Let me expand the analogy to make the point. Let’s say a fisherman is really bad at his job and has to be fished out of the water by the Coast Guard seven times. Was he saved on each of those occasions? Absolutely. Does any of that change if, he drowns on a subsequent occasion? Not at all. He was saved but ultimately lost.

          The problem here is that you are equating being saved with ultimate salvation because you are assuming once-saved-always-saved.

          Salvation isn’t so cheap that it can be lost like that.

          You’re asserting salvation can’t be lost, but that needs to be demonstrated. As I’ve said, Scripture talks about people who “turn away… are cut off… are yoked back into slavery… who fall away from grace… who are alienated from Christ… who become burdened again… entangled… and return to their vomit”. It speaks of people who were united to Christ, but are no longer.

          Like being born. You can be born once, and only once, you cannot be born, and then go back into the womb and be unborn

          Isn’t this Nicodemus’ logic?!

          The historic Christian position isn’t that one is born again multiple times. A man is born once of flesh from his mother’s womb and once of spirit from the womb of baptism. If one commits grave sin, the sins are forgiven through the priesthood:

          [The bishop conducting the ordination of the new bishop should pray:] …by the Spirit of the high priesthood to have the authority to forgive sins, in accord with your command. – Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition (c. AD 215)

          Not in the literal sense. Baptism does not literally save you. It washes away your sins in a different way. It sets you apart as God’s child.

          This seems very confused. It washes sins away “in a different way”?! In what way is that? Are my sins washed away or not?

  • Well, if I say I am saved from Hell, than I am not going to Hell. So you believe that one can lose the state of saving grace, and I do not, that is our difference. Now the sailor was saved each of those times from drowning at those times. Hell is not a thing that you can fall into more than once; either you are in Hell or not.
    As to the birth analogy, I am talking purely physically, in representation of rebirth. We are reborn, but only once, just as we are physically born once. If one is born again multiple times, he should be baptised multiple times.

    • Well, if I say I am saved from Hell, than I am not going to Hell.

      You’re assuming that if I am saved from Hell, then there’s no possibility that this situation could change – you’re assuming once-saved-always-saved.

      So you believe that one can lose the state of saving grace, and I do not, that is our difference

      True, but there’s an awful lot of Church History and Scripture which then needs to be explained away.

      As to the birth analogy, I am talking purely physically, in representation of rebirth. We are reborn, but only once, just as we are physically born once. If one is born again multiple times, he should be baptised multiple times.

      As I said, the historic Christian position isn’t that one is “born again” multiple times – the Nicene Creed affirmed “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”.

      ~~~

      For the points in our discussion that you don’t address, I’m generally not pressing you on them as I hope you’ll consider them hoping that you’ll go looking for answers… but I’m really curious as to how you’d answer my question about 1st John – How can someone who is unregenerate and therefore dead in sin commit a sin “which is unto death”?

  • With what you are saying, there is no hope, no joy, no peace, and only partial love. R.C Sproul puts it this way:
    “I’m walking the Christian life with my hand in God’s hand. If my perseverance depended upon my holding tightly to God’s hand, I would surely fall away because at some point I would let go. But I believe that the Scriptures teach us that God is holding my hand, and because he is holding my hand, I don’t have to fear that I will fall ultimately and finally.”
    If it is left to me whether I persevere or not, there is no hope: I will not persevere; I am not so good as that (maybe you are, but I know I am not).
    Now a true believer may sin in ways that cause separation from God, but not to the extent that they have totally and finally left the faith, otherwise, they were not elect, nor saved.
    You quoted 1 John, but 1 John 2 says “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. “

    • Merry Christmas to you also!
      I wanted to add to this because I remembered some parables which I will use (I pray not wrongly) to illustrate my point. First is the parable of wheat and tares. I grew up having a garden and some animals. Now I don’t know about you, but I’ve never seen a corn seed grow up to be a thistle, or a cucumber to grow up to be an asparagus (I have picked a carrot that I thought was a weed, or a weed that I thought was a radish). In the same way the sheep never become goats, the elect never become un-elect. Israel was the chosen nation from the time of Abraham; all the bad it did did not change its status of Chosen. Of course these are imperfect examples, but they well illustrate my point.

      • I wanted to add to this because I remembered some parables which I will use (I pray not wrongly) to illustrate my point…

        Okay, there are some problems with trying to use these parables in the way Calvin enjoyed…

        The first problem is that it misses the point of the parable. One shouldn’t try and draw from a parable something which it wasn’t actually addressing, otherwise one might think that Jesus is teaching us to defraud our bosses! The point of the Wheat and the Tares is to say that that God’s judgement is coming but in the meantime it won’t always be easy to distinguish the good from the bad. I unpack it further here. Likewise, what is the point of the sheep and goats? Once again, it is to say that a judgement is coming.

        The second problem is that the analogy doesn’t reflect what Calvinism teaches. Under Calvinism, the sheep begin as sheep and the wheat begin as wheat. A Calvinistic version of the Wheat and Tares would be where the neighbour sows a field full of nothing but tares but then the owner of the field walks through it, turning certain tares of his choosing into wheat. The Sheep and the Goats has similar problems, but also doesn’t really map to Calvinism well because judgement is exclusively spoken of in terms of works. A Calvinistic version would not only have to require the transformation of goats into sheep, but also explicitly say that the works mentioned are only signaling the faith which they had received.

        Israel was the chosen nation from the time of Abraham; all the bad it did did not change its status of Chosen.

        Ah…here’s a really important point. Would you be willing to say that because Israel was the chosen nation that therefore all those belonging to Israel were saved? I assume not. I think this mixing of the micro and macro is also a source for problems within Calvin’s reasoning.

        • If you could please respond to the former comment discussing perseverance, I would appreciate hearing what you say.
          Of course we should not take the parables out of context, but it does not follow that what I’m saying is totally inapplicable.
          We believe that God works a miracle in our rebirth; this would accout for our transformation from tares to wheat, from goats to sheep, from damned to saved. Now I guess you could argue that the miracle could work in the reverse–Satan miraculously changing the sheep to goats, but I think that underestimates God’s miracle and overestimates Satan’s power.
          The good works are not merely a signaling, they are part of the equation. Faith brings forth works (In fact, Faith really is a work, when you think about it). Every time. Faith brings forth justification and works (Would it be fair to say that in your view faith and works bring justification?).
          We teach that Israel is a holy nation, a covenant nation, in the same way our children are holy, covenant children. They are set apart by God as His Holy People. They are not necessarily saved by this sancification. The setting apart means they are not of the world. The hope is that they are elect. Esau was set apart as a child of Abraham. He was not elect.

          • If you could please respond to the former comment discussing perseverance, I would appreciate hearing what you say.

            Which one?

            Now I guess you could argue that the miracle could work in the reverse–Satan miraculously changing the sheep to goats, but I think that underestimates God’s miracle and overestimates Satan’s power.

            I don’t think it does, unless you’re a Calvinist with a particular conception of sovereignty. If God “wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” – 1 Timothy 2:4 and they don’t then something has got in the way.

            We teach that Israel is a holy nation, a covenant nation, in the same way our children are holy, covenant children. They are set apart by God as His Holy People. They are not necessarily saved by this sancification. The setting apart means they are not of the world. The hope is that they are elect. Esau was set apart as a child of Abraham. He was not elect.

            Do you think that nobody was saved outside of Israel?

  • Replying to the message that begins “What does “under its belief” mean?”
    I simply meant that in my understanding the belief in baptismal regeneration means X, not that one has to believe to be regenerated at birth, though this would be more in line with what I believe. If a person is regenerate, it happens in some way at baptism, but not in all ways. If the Etheopian eunuch had been bitten by a snake and died before he had a chance to be baptized or if Paul had been murdered by thieves before he got to Damascus, would they have gone to Hell? ‘…it’s the fulfillment, which brings about “remission of sins” and “regeneration”.’ Hold on. Brings about future tense or present? (I’m not certainn about your beliefs on original sin, however, under the ideas of the majority, it seems like you think infants are not sinful. If they are not sinful, how can there be remission of sins?).
    “The question is whether that’s all it is.” The seal has spiritual results. But it does not save the soul of the person baptised. Those baptized are separate from the world, but not all are saved. The Israelites were God’s chosen people, but many Israelites were damned.
    I meant that my views do not disagree with the quotatians.
    That is a big problem. There is one baptism for the remission of sins, not many, not a new baptism for the remission of sins when the sins are mortal. I’m not saying the practice of Confession is a bad thing necessarily, Peter had to confess and repent of his sin to be used by the Lord, but was he going to Hell? Was all before that meaningless?

    • If the Etheopian eunuch had been bitten by a snake and died before he had a chance to be baptized or if Paul had been murdered by thieves before he got to Damascus, would they have gone to Hell?

      No. Baptism is the means by which Jesus set His Church for the salvation of souls. The Sacraments are the normal means of salvation, but that doesn’t mean that God can act extraordinarily outside of them.

      This is reflected in the belief of the ancient Church. In the Early Church those in the catechumenate were often killed before they completed it and were baptised. The Early Church Fathers spoke of this as a “Baptism of Blood” and “Baptism of Desire”.

      Brings about future tense or present? (I’m not certainn about your beliefs on original sin, however, under the ideas of the majority, it seems like you think infants are not sinful. If they are not sinful, how can there be remission of sins?).

      Unlike adults, infants haven’t committed personal sin, but due to Adam’s Fault they are, by nature “children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3). Baptism restores to them what was lost in the Fall.

      The seal has spiritual results. But it does not save the soul of the person baptised. Those baptized are separate from the world, but not all are saved.

      There are spiritual results but this doesn’t include spiritual regeneration? They’re separated but not saved? In what sense then are they separated from the world? Honestly, this just seems incoherent to me. It seems like Calvin painted himself into a corner – he had to concede that baptism did something, but his soteriology meant that he couldn’t concede the belief of the Early Church.

      The Israelites were God’s chosen people, but many Israelites were damned.

      Here we have another micro-macro problem. I’d suggest 1 Corinthians 10 is a better example, particularly because St. Paul tells us that these events were for our instruction. In that passage St. Paul retells the story of the Exodus. He explains how Israel passed through the water and eat the heavenly brad but many ultimately rejected the Lord. He we have a perfect representation of Catholic theology regarding salvation with the Sacraments foreshadowed (Baptism and Eucharist), and we see that while some were “saved” from Egypt, they ultimately fell away.

      • Maybe we can say that baptism is set as the means for salvation of souls, but why would it follow that every baptized soul is saved?
        I like the teaching on the “Baptism of Desire” and have used it myself to explain the salvation of people like the thief on the cross.
        So I am correct in understanding that it is our mutual view that infants are just as guilty of sin and Hell before baptism as anyone else, (people are not sinners because they sin; they sin because they are sinners) and that the blood of the waters of baptism washes away their sin?

        “There are spiritual results but this doesn’t include spiritual regeneration? They’re separated but not saved? In what sense then are they separated from the world? Honestly, this just seems incoherent to me. It seems like Calvin painted himself into a corner – he had to concede that baptism did something, but his soteriology meant that he couldn’t concede the belief of the Early Church.”

        I hesitate to say that even the elect are regenerated at the time of their baptism. I believe that they were elect before the foundations of the earth were laid. In what sense were the Israelites separated from the world? In the sense that they are God’s Chosen people, set apart by Him, but you agree that not every Israelite was saved. I am sure you would say the same thing for Calvin’s view of Holy Communion. I don’t see any contradiction. It aligns very well with the OT, and makes logical sense; what is your dilemma exactly? That it sets apart but doesn’t save? God has made more than one covenant. If baptism is the continuation of the covenant of circumcision (an everlasting covenant) then why can it not set apart without saving?

        • Maybe we can say that baptism is set as the means for salvation of souls, but why would it follow that every baptized soul is saved?

          Because St. Peter says so? “Baptism…now saves you” – 1 Peter 3:21

          Why would the one not follow the other? The only reason I can imagine is if one’s soteriology presupposed once-saved-always-saved.

          So I am correct in understanding that it is our mutual view that infants are just as guilty of sin and Hell before baptism as anyone else, (people are not sinners because they sin; they sin because they are sinners) and that the blood of the waters of baptism washes away their sin?

          Here is a succinct Catholic articulation of our state. Actually, I think it might be helpful for you to read the opening pages here on the subject of Baptism.

          I hesitate to say that even the elect are regenerated at the time of their baptism.

          I don’t think Calvin would affirm that.

          I don’t see any contradiction. It aligns very well with the OT, and makes logical sense; what is your dilemma exactly? That it sets apart but doesn’t save? God has made more than one covenant. If baptism is the continuation of the covenant of circumcision (an everlasting covenant) then why can it not set apart without saving?

          Aside from the fact that every single Christian writer for the first 1,500 years of Christianity affirmed that it did… My issue is that your conception of baptism tries to imbue it with some meaning, but at the same time have it make no earthly (or Heavenly) difference. It makes no sense to me to say that one can be united by God in the New Covenant of Christ, born again… and still be unregenerate.

          • “Which one?”
            December 24, 2021 10:26 am
            Begins: “With what you are saying…”
            First Timothy 2:4 is talking about all kinds of people, otherwise the other verses in the chapter make little sense. The first several verses (which also use the phrase “all people”) are talking about praying for all people, and gives examples: kings and those in authority.

            “Do you think that nobody was saved outside of Israel?” Sure, Melchizedek, Balaam, and the Magi for examples. But this is an “unnatural” grafting in. Extraordinary cases.

            I do not deny that baptism, inasmuch as it is Jesus’ blood sprinkled upon us as a sacrifice, cleansing our sins. (The verse is saying that, as the baptism of the flood saved Noah, so the baptism of Jesus blood saves us. I have also been taught–by Baptists mind–that there are two baptisms, a outward, and an inward. I suppose I still believe this.)
            “Why would the one not follow the other? The only reason I can imagine is if one’s soteriology presupposed once-saved-always-saved.” Jesus said that he who believes and is baptized is saved. Not he who is baptized believing or not.
            “I don’t think Calvin would affirm that.” Please why not? Citation?

            “Aside from the fact that every single Christian writer for the first 1,500 years of Christianity affirmed that it did…” But you can interpret what they said in different ways.

            “My issue is that your conception of baptism tries to imbue it with some meaning, but at the same time have it make no earthly (or Heavenly) difference.” Calvin taught that it makes both earthly and Heavenly difference.
            To be born again you must be baptized and believe. Mark 16:16 “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”

          • R.C Sproul puts it this way: “I’m walking the Christian life with my hand in God’s hand. If my perseverance depended upon my holding tightly to God’s hand, I would surely fall away because at some point I would let go. But I believe that the Scriptures teach us that God is holding my hand, and because he is holding my hand, I don’t have to fear that I will fall ultimately and finally.”

            This is just a restatement that he believes in once-saved-always-saved. It also begs the question as to why Paul tells the Philippians to work out their salvation “with fear and trembling”.

            If it is left to me whether I persevere or not, there is no hope: I will not persevere; I am not so good as that (maybe you are, but I know I am not).

            It is not the historic Christian claim that one is left unaided in this journey.

            However, here we get into the problems of divine determinism and double-predestination in Calvinism, which means that those who go to Heaven have no choice in the matter and those who go to Hell had no possibility of doing anything else.

          • Now a true believer may sin in ways that cause separation from God, but not to the extent that they have totally and finally left the faith, otherwise, they were not elect, nor saved.

            …this just brings us back to all the passages I’ve mentioned before about those who were united to Christ, but who are no longer, who “turn away… are cut off… are yoked back into slavery… who fall away from grace… who are alienated from Christ… who become burdened again… entangled… and return to their vomit”.

            You reference 1 John 5, but don’t explain how it can be reconciled with once-saved-always-saved. How can a believer commit a sin which leads to death? Is it possible to be spiritually dead and spiritually alive at the same time?

            1 John 2 says “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.“

            You’re assuming a Calvinistic interpretation of 1 John 2:19. However, this isn’t necessary…

            The Greek term “exerchomai” simply means to go outside – there’s nothing lexically which identifies it as a euphemism for apostasy. That reference to “going out” is also in 1 John 4:1-3 and 2 John 1:7. In both of these cases it refers to going out to spread heresy. The Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 notes that this had happened: “We have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions.” – Acts 15:24. I’d therefore suggest that a more natural reading of this passage in light of the whole of Scripture is that the antichrists mentioned by John went out as though they were sent by the Apostles, but in fact were not, unlike the missionaries of 3 John 1:5-8.

            (For more information on this, check out Catholic Nick’s Blog)

          • First Timothy 2:4 is talking about all kinds of people, otherwise the other verses in the chapter make little sense.

            There’s nothing in the text which indicates that Paul means all kinds of people. The text which Paul writes says “all people” (Gk “…pantas anthropous…”). All people means all people, whether they be king or commoner.

            have also been taught–by Baptists mind–that there are two baptisms, a outward, and an inward. I suppose I still believe this.

            On what Scriptural basis?

            Jesus said that he who believes and is baptized is saved. Not he who is baptized believing or not.

            …because he’s speaking to adults. If an adult male were to convert to Judaism he would have to believe and be circumcised. However, belief would not be required for a baby.

            “I don’t think Calvin would affirm that.” Please why not? Citation?

            Because that would equate to baptismal regeneration, which he rejected. Anyway, according to Calvin, mustn’t faith be preceded by regeneration?

          • “Aside from the fact that every single Christian writer for the first 1,500 years of Christianity affirmed that it did…” But you can interpret what they said in different ways.

            Well, one can interpret Scripture differently too, and St. Peter says that some do so to their own destruction. However, the case with the Early Church is different from that of Scripture because the Early Church speaks voluminously and very clearly on this issue.

            I would say that you can’t use the Depends-upon-your-interpretation Argument unless you can actually offer a reinterpretation of what the Early Church said. Most Calvinists I’ve met will simply concede that the Early Church universally taught Baptismal Regeneration, but then say that the Early Church erred in this matter… which for the reasons I’ve mentioned is a seriously problematic position to hold.

  • “It is not the historic Christian claim that one is left unaided in this journey.
    However, here we get into the problems of divine determinism and double-predestination in Calvinism, which means that those who go to Heaven have no choice in the matter and those who go to Hell had no possibility of doing anything else.” Of course, we are not left unaided in the journey, and the beginning of the journey is still part of the journey. We don’t believe that man is good enough to start off, nor to continue—it is entirely due to God’s Amazing Grace. We all have a choice, and we all choose Hell.
    Not sure that you (or I) want to get into all this, but I will just say that upon reading Romans 9, your case doesn’t seem to fit very well.

    “I’d therefore suggest that a more natural reading of this passage in light of the whole of Scripture is that the antichrists mentioned by John went out as though they were sent by the Apostles, but in fact were not, unlike the missionaries of 3 John 1:5-8.”
    Sure, but this kind of misses the point. It says that they went out “that it might become plain that they were not of us” not for other reasons. It doesn’t say they went out to spread heresy, but to make it plain that they were not of us.

    “All people means all people, whether they be king or commoner.”
    Applying good hermeneutics, and constant, let’s look at verse one: “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.”
    Now if this all people literally means all people, then you and I had better quit our day jobs. We’d better get together, start with Adam, Eve, Abel, Cain (yes, even those in Hell—all doesn’t mean just some.), and so on until every single person on earth is prayed for (more than once). Oh wait… Intercessions? Thanksgivings? Even for Adolf Hitler? Mao Tse-tung? For all people? We are to intercess for those already in Hell? I’m scratching my head here. Why on earth does God want us to pray for the salvation, of the damned?! You see, it doesn’t make much sense.
    In addition, it gives a purpose—that we live a peaceful and quiet life. We are to love and pray for all kinds of people, even if we do not like them.

    “On what Scriptural basis?” They taught that the “doctrine of baptisms” in Hebrews, because it was plural applied to a) the baptism of John, b) the baptism of water, and c) the baptism of the Holy Ghost.

    “However, belief would not be required for a baby.”
    And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”
    It says proclaim to all creation. This includes your infants. I’m not saying you have to believe to be baptized, I’m saying you have to believe to be saved. “Whoever does not believe will be condemned.” ‘Whoever’ does not exclude infants.

    “Anyway, according to Calvin, mustn’t faith be preceded by regeneration?”
    I would rather say election precedes faith. I don’t exactly say when regeneration happens. It would make more sense to say regeneration and faith occur simultaneously, but when you have lapses of faith you are still regenerate. I guess it depends on your definition of regeneration.
    Which leads to a point I want to make. A lot of this seems to me to be arguing in vain because we aren’t talking about the same thing. You and I mean different things when we say regeneration. We must, “define and describe” what we are talking about. If I talk about regeneration as final, and you talk about it as an estate of grace, we are talking about two different things. If we agree on terms, it seems like we agree on more things.
    I will have to admit here that, aside from St. Augustine, and select topics from others, I have studied very little of what the Early Church said (if the Doctor of Grace is even Early Church). That is to say, my knowledge of what the Early Church said is very biased and only on select topics, baptismal regeneration being one I have not studied, really at all.

    • Not sure that you (or I) want to get into all this, but I will just say that upon reading Romans 9, your case doesn’t seem to fit very well.

      We can leave it, but I’d just again highlight that the Calvinistic reading of Romans 9 is not the only one nor the most common.

      Sure, but this kind of misses the point. It says that they went out “that it might become plain that they were not of us” not for other reasons. It doesn’t say they went out to spread heresy, but to make it plain that they were not of us.

      Yes, it doesn’t say that they went out to spread heresy, but I showed the linguistic patterns are consistent with other passages where that is explicit.

      However, even if we ignore that and go with the ESV translation, I don’t see how that proves Calvinism. For example, in my hometown, a deacon slept with another man’s wife and as a result half the congregation “went out” of that congregation and founded another to demonstrate that they were “not of” that original congregation.

      I still haven’t seen your explanation of how 1 John 5 can be reconciled once-saved-always-saved. How can a believer commit a sin which leads to death? Is it possible to be spiritually dead and spiritually alive at the same time?

    • Now if this all people literally means all people, then you and I had better quit our day jobs…

      You’re trying to say that “[God] wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” doesn’t actually mean “all” people, because in an earlier verse, Paul says he wants “petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people and he can’t really mean “all” in that verse because some people have died and some people were bad… I don’t find this line of argumentation very strong at all.

      Firstly, although they’re close to each other, you’re asking about two different verses, so I’d be wary of saying that because a word has meaning X in verse 1, then it must have the same meaning in verse 4. This would quickly destroy any kind of exegesis, particularly around words like “all”, such as when Paul says all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”….

      Secondly, you seem to be assuming that we can’t pray for the dead, but this was the practice of the Early Church as well as in Judaism before it.

      Thirdly, we have no certain knowledge of who exactly is in Hell and because this is God’s job and not ours, we are not commanded to even bother speculating.

      Fourthly, the emphasis in both verses is clearly on universality. Even if we just limit it to those who are alive, Paul wants the Church to pray for all of them…even the Church’s current greatest enemy. Likewise, Paul affirms that God wants all people to be saved”.

      Fifthly, why do no translations seem to indicate a Calvinistic interpretation? The ESV doesn’t say “all kinds of people”, just “all people”.

      Finally, I’m not even sure how your interpretation would work. What even counts as a “kind” of person? If God only desires certain “kinds” be saved, does that mean I only have to pray for certain “kinds” too? Who gets to decide what these “kinds” are? In verse 1 the only “kinds” mentioned are “kings and all those in authority”, does that mean those are the “kinds” God wants to save?

    • “On what Scriptural basis?” They taught that the “doctrine of baptisms” in Hebrews, because it was plural applied to a) the baptism of John, b) the baptism of water, and c) the baptism of the Holy Ghost.

      I’m guessing this is a reference to Hebrews 6:2, which the ESV renders “and of instruction about washings”. I’m not quite sure how one gets from there to everything else… particularly in a way which is strong enough to discount the universal witness of the Early Church:

      “While I was lying in darkness . . . I thought it indeed difficult and hard to believe . . . that divine mercy was promised for my salvation, so that anyone might be born again and quickened unto a new life by the laver of the saving water, he might put off what he had been before, and, although the structure of the body remained, he might change himself in soul and mind. . . . But afterwards, when the stain of my past life had been washed away by means of the water of rebirth, a light from above poured itself upon my chastened and now pure heart; afterwards, through the Spirit which is breathed from heaven, a second birth made of me a new man” – Cyprian to Donatus, AD 246

    • It says proclaim to all creation. This includes your infants.

      Okay, but you can’t make a baby “believe” therefore you would just baptize.

      I’m not saying you have to believe to be baptized, I’m saying you have to believe to be saved.

      Surely you’re not saying that any baptised child who dies prior to the amporphous “age of reason” would be lost since they did not “believe”?

    • I would rather say election precedes faith. I don’t exactly say when regeneration happens. It would make more sense to say regeneration and faith occur simultaneously, but when you have lapses of faith you are still regenerate. I guess it depends on your definition of regeneration.

      I’ve always heard Calvinists such as Sproul assert that regeneration precedes faith. Total Depravity means that the sinner is dead and cannot believe until God regenerates the sinner is regenerated, giving a new nature which is capable of belief.

      Which leads to a point I want to make. A lot of this seems to me to be arguing in vain because we aren’t talking about the same thing. You and I mean different things when we say regeneration. We must, “define and describe” what we are talking about. If I talk about regeneration as final, and you talk about it as an estate of grace, we are talking about two different things. If we agree on terms, it seems like we agree on more things.

      I don’t think the definition of regeneration is controversial or even in question:

      “In regeneration, God changes our hearts. He gives us a new disposition, a new inclination. That is why we said earlier regeneration precedes faith.” – R.C. Sproul

      Only God can bring life to dead souls and enable them to believe. He does this when, where, and how he pleases by His Spirit, who regenerates or gives life leading to faith.” – Jay Adams

      We both agree that man must be regenerated – the dispute is over how this happens.

      I will have to admit here that, aside from St. Augustine, and select topics from others, I have studied very little of what the Early Church said (if the Doctor of Grace is even Early Church).

      Typically people talk about the Patristic age ending around 8th Century, so Augustine falls very happily in that era.

      That is to say, my knowledge of what the Early Church said is very biased and only on select topics, baptismal regeneration being one I have not studied, really at all.

      A good jumping-off point is churchfathers.org but the most readable book is When the Church was Young. There are also lots of free resources here.

  • “…the Calvinistic reading of Romans 9 is not the only one nor the most common.”
    The question is not whether it is the only interpretation (there are always more interpretations of any question) nor which is common, but which is true.

    “However, even if we ignore that and go with the ESV translation,”
    What is wrong with the ESV translation? The ESV was based on the RSV, if I am not mistaken. The RSVCE says the same as the ESV “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us.” The purpose is to show that they were not of us. The “us” is referring to the church, not the false church or a scandalous church.
    The verses in 1 John 5, I admit puzzle me. I do not know all things. It says one should not pray for the sin that leads to death. What of that?
    Most importantly, the true, elect believer will not sin leading to death. First John 5:18 says: “We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him.”
    I do not say that these few passages prove Calvinism (preferrably called Reformed teaching or the Doctrines of Grace), but altogether the Word of God, we believe teaches the Reformed interpretation of election and the like. We don’t believe it is just an interpretation, but the truth.
    “Firstly, although they’re close to each other, you’re asking about two different verses, so I’d be wary of saying that because a word has meaning X in verse 1, then it must have the same meaning in verse 4. This would quickly destroy any kind of exegesis, particularly around words like “all”, such as when Paul says“all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”….”
    I see no problems in interpreting scripture from other passages of scripture. Why would it mean two different things in the same passage?
    If I said all the dogs are small, and then in the same paragraph said all the dogs are chihuahuas, then you would know that I didn’t mean when I said “all the dogs” that St. Bernards or Dobermans are small, but that chihuahuas are small.
    Finally, if you are correct that God desires all people to be saved, then it is a different kind of desire than the one we are thinking of. In the same way that God has no pleasure when the wicked perish, but has pleasure in justice, God desires that all would be saved but has another plan which He desires more or in a different way.

    On the baptism issue, I am not going to defend it, though it makes sense in my mind, it may only be a vestige of when I was Baptist. It may be wrong, though I do not realise why it would be.

    “Surely you’re not saying that any baptised child who dies prior to the amporphous “age of reason” would be lost since they did not “believe”?”
    I like the fact that you put believe in quotation marks. I in fact don’t think the Baptist notion that you have to be a certain age to belive is truth. The matter of belief is whoever God has chosen to give the grace of belief, not depending on the child’s ability to believe; and even then, who says, the child does not believe though he cannot articulate his belief?

    “Total Depravity means that the sinner is dead and cannot believe until God regenerates the sinner is regenerated, giving a new nature which is capable of belief.”
    So, I agree that a person cannot believe without regeneration; however, the person cannot be regenerate without belief. Belief comes with regeneration. They are simultaneous as far as I can tell.

    “I don’t think the definition of regeneration is controversial or even in question…”
    Maybe not. But you have said several times that I was talking “in terms of final regeneration” and by my definition, true regeneration is final.
    “We both agree that man must be regenerated – the dispute is over how this happens.”
    If we are talking of regeneration in terms of a change of heart, then I must deny baptismal regeneration. The heart is not always changed at baptism. Mine wasn’t. I was baptised when I was twelve. But the change of heart did not occur then. It may have happened before that. I think it happened a long while afterwards. I don’t really know. But based on the fruit and my memory of my thoughts, I was not changed in heart then. Of course then I thought baptism a mere symbol of belief but, I do not know whether I believed then, or I believed since I was born. God knows.

    “Typically people talk about the Patristic age ending around 8th Century, so Augustine falls very happily in that era.” In the majority of Protestant circles, the Early Church is approximately from Pentacost to 500 A.D., and St. Augustine is about on the border. Some say he is not Early Church, though I’ve always thought he was.

    The resources for the study of the Early Church certainly look helpful, and I will definitely check them out, however, I can’t help but think it is very little different from my present idea of the Early Church. Sure, it will give me a more well-rounded idea, but those sources are no doubt just as biased as mine. I plan to read the father’s own words, and plan to begin with St. Athanasius’s On the Incarnation (which, by the way comes with an introduction by C. S. Lewis). Do you have any other recommendations for starting?

    Now I would like to say one more thing. I am not trying to convince you of Calvinism. You are convinced the Magesterium teaches against it. Perhaps it does. But I have studied both the Bible and soteriology (as accords with Protestantism) well enough to hold to the Reformed doctrines, and am convinced that unless I am persuaded of the authority of the (Roman Catholic) Church, I will remain Reformed. It is the most biblical, God-honouring option, by my study of the Bible. I didn’t like it for a fair time myself, even for awhile after I believed its Biblicity; but I now love the doctrines. Thanks be to God. Even if I agreed with you on the Church, I would no doubt hold a more Augustinian, or Thomist idea of soteriology.
    I believe that a) faith is a good work, b) those who are dead in sin are incapable of moral good works, and c) only God can bring the dead to life. Therefore, the salvation I have is due to Him and Him alone. Not due to my faith nor my good works, (which are only results of regeneration) but God’s grace alone. Sola Gratia. My conscience tells me it is true, and I will not go against that.
    All this is to say, you may try, but, I don’t think you will be able to convince me against the Reformed Doctrines based upon Scripture, when there is so much in scripture that points to it. If the (Roman Catholic) Church has authority over my interpretation of the Bible, then it may be that I have to change my view. Until then, by God’s grace I will hold it. In the words of Luther “Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.”

    • “If we are talking of regeneration in terms of a change of heart, then I must deny baptismal regeneration. The heart is not always changed at baptism. Mine wasn’t. I was baptised when I was twelve. But the change of heart did not occur then. It may have happened before that. I think it happened a long while afterwards. I don’t really know. But based on the fruit and my memory of my thoughts, I was not changed in heart then. Of course then I thought baptism a mere symbol of belief but, I do not know whether I believed then, or I believed since I was born. God knows.”
      Nevermind this. Perhaps some change of heart happened at my baptism. In Baptist terms I was “saved” before or after in theory. But my heart may have begun to change at baptism in some way. Certainly sanctification cannot have happened before baptism could it?
      Anyway this is a bad form of arguing and I cannot really say for sure what happened at my baptism.

      • I will have to once more clarify my view on baptism. I think it does, in a way save, as it is the washing away of sins of believers. But to be true baptism it must also be a baptism of the Holy Ghost (and with fire). I don’t believe the non-elect recieve this sort of baptism. The Holy Ghost passes over them.
        As you can tell I am still thinking through these things. I beg your patience.

        • I will have to once more clarify my view on baptism. I think it does, in a way save, as it is the washing away of sins of believers. But to be true baptism it must also be a baptism of the Holy Ghost (and with fire). I don’t believe the non-elect recieve this sort of baptism. The Holy Ghost passes over them.

          I think it does, in a way save, as it is the washing away of sins of believers. But to be true baptism it must also be a baptism of the Holy Ghost (and with fire). I don’t believe the non-elect recieve this sort of baptism.

          1. The Church already dealt with this question in the Fourth Century when refuting the Donatists (“Ex opere operato”).
          2. How could you possibly know if you received a “true” baptism or not? They would both look identical.
          3. On what basis would God regenerate Person X through a “true” baptism and refuse to regenerate Person Y in another baptism? If it was God’s choice to not regeneration Person Y, in what sense is he culpable before God?

          • Ex opere operato seems more in line with what Catholics believe. “By doing it (baptizing) it is done (regeneration).”
            This is what I was saying about my learnings from my Baptist teachers. The only way we (in theory) would know whether it is a “true baptism” is if we see them in Heaven (we can guess: you shall know a tree by its fruits).

            Now so far, all I’ve done on the topic of baptism is shown that I’m confused. Let me try again to clarify my view.
            I believe that the (two) sacraments are both seals of God’s covenant with us. When we partake of them, we are sealed as God’s covenant children. God is present in the sacraments, because it is a Holy Covenant (present not only in the bread, wine, water, but all around present in the sacrament). The Holiness does not lie with the water, or the bread or wine, or the words of the elder who consecrates it, but in God’s Covenant. The words only consecrate it in the way that he announces that “this is the sign of the covenant” and it is a Holy thing to partake. You are one of God’s Covenant people. Now you must believe to be saved. I guess that is part of the covenant. But whether or not you are saved you are now a Covenant Child. Now which covenant? I suppose the Abrahamic, (the Noahic in a way too), in part the Mosaic, the Davidic, and the New.
            Not sure how well that clarifies.

      • Sorry, just got to your amendment. One point though…

        Certainly sanctification cannot have happened before baptism could it?

        If baptism washes away sin then you were certainly sanctified. However, that doesn’t mean that you’re incapable of sinning in the future or could not grow in holiness.

        • But before baptism, is sanctification possible?
          One more addition. The sign of the covenant is something like the putting the hand on the head of the sacrifice in Leviticus.

          • But before baptism, is sanctification possible?

            Depends what you mean by “sanctification”. Only a madman would suggest that a non-Christian couldn’t grow in virtue.

            One more addition. The sign of the covenant is something like the putting the hand on the head of the sacrifice in Leviticus.

            That’s incorrect – you’re just describing a sacrificial rite. The sign of the Adamic covenant was the Sabbath, the Noaic was the Rainbow, Abrahamic was Circumcision, … and the New Covenant was the Eucharist.

          • I should have made “something like” more clear. Describing what the sacrament does, it is a seal of the covenant. Putting the hand on the head is the “seal” that makes the sacrifice a sacrifice. It makes it sacred. It says that “this sacrifice pays for my sins.” Likewise, when you take the Covenant seal of the Eucharist, you are sealed as the one whose been paid for. You are God’s property now. Bad analogy.

    • Sorry for the delay… my son has entered sleep regression and had his four-month vaccinations, so needless to say, sleep has been thin on the ground…

      The question is not whether it is the only interpretation (there are always more interpretations of any question) nor which is common, but which is true.

      Sure, I’m just making the point that one can’t just appeal to a chapter as evidence as though it automatically supports one’s point (having said that, I do think an interpretation’s antiquity and universality are important things to consider).

      What is wrong with the ESV translation?

      Nothing is wrong with the ESV, I was only pointing out that it is not the only way to render the English and other translations are less favourable to your interpretation.

      The purpose is to show that they were not of us. The “us” is referring to the church, not the false church or a scandalous church.

      Fine, I just don’t think any of it necessitates TULIP.

      • “Sorry for the delay” No worries! Take care of your family, God bless you.
        The passage doesn’t necessitate TULIP but it clarifies the other passages about “mortal sin”.

    • The verses in 1 John 5, I admit puzzle me. I do not know all things. It says one should not pray for the sin that leads to death. What of that? Most importantly, the true, elect believer will not sin leading to death. First John 5:18 says: “We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him.”

      Here’s a good summary of how I would explain that passage.

      I do not say that these few passages prove Calvinism (preferrably called Reformed teaching or the Doctrines of Grace), but altogether the Word of God, we believe teaches the Reformed interpretation of election and the like.

      I’m not particularly bothered what one calls it, although I would point out that not all of the Fathers of the Reformation taught the same thing, so while Calvinism may be Reformed teaching, not all Reformed teaching is Calvinism.

      We don’t believe it is just an interpretation, but the truth.

      If it’s the truth then I would suggest passages like 1 John 5:16 should make some kind of coherent sense, as well as all the various passages which speak of believers falling from grace.

      • If you google “what does it mean to be reformed” it will come up with the teachings of Calvinism. Reformed does not mean the general teaching of all the Reformers, but the Reformed tradition. It doesn’t much matter, but it is like you preferring not to be called “papist.”
        Those passages do make coherent truth, but I do not know all the answers personally. No doubt I could find plenty of articles explaining them. The most recent explanation I came across was found in James White’s sermon “Objections to the Doctrines of Grace” which was preached at Apologia Church and can be found on their iTunes channel.

      • The exposition of the passage that you shared left me more confused than satisfied. We are to pray for all people except when we don’t have time? Should we (like I said) quit our day jobs to create time. Should we disobey the “pray for all people”? Or perhaps the context of the verse means pray for all kinds of people, or “pray for people you don’t like”.

    • I see no problems in interpreting scripture from other passages of scripture. Why would it mean two different things in the same passage?

      I’m not against trying to use Scripture to interpret Scripture, but you can’t simply assume that a word which has semantic range will have a consistent meaning throughout every passage. I gave an example to demonstrate this – if “all” actually means “all kinds of people” then does that mean that “[all kinds of people] have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”, implying that there are other kinds who haven’t sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

      If I said all the dogs are small, and then in the same paragraph said all the dogs are chihuahuas, then you would know that I didn’t mean when I said “all the dogs” that St. Bernards or Dobermans are small, but that chihuahuas are small.

      Why would you say “all dogs are small” though?! Why not say “most dogs” or “some dogs”? If you want to change Paul’s letter to Timothy to refer to dogs, here’s how that passage might look:

      First of all, then, I urge that toys, walkies, and treats be made for all dogs, for Dobermans and all who are particularly scary, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all dogs to be happy and to come to the knowledge of the truth

      If you read this, would you assume that Jesus only wanted only certain dog breeds to be happy? Or that he wants all dogs to be happy and live in peace?

      Finally, if you are correct that God desires all people to be saved, then it is a different kind of desire than the one we are thinking of. In the same way that God has no pleasure when the wicked perish, but has pleasure in justice, God desires that all would be saved but has another plan which He desires more or in a different way.

      Here we come to the issue of free will. If it is God’s sovereign will is that we be able to freely choose or reject Him (as I believe it is) then it is entirely understandable that St. Paul would say that God “desires all men to be saved” and yet for it look very much like all people are not saved. As Lewis says in Mere Christianity:

      But anyone who has been in authority knows how a thing can be in accordance with your will in one way and not in another. It may be quite sensible for a mother to say to the children, “I’m not going to go and make you tidy the schoolroom every night. You’ve got to learn to keep it tidy on your own.” Then she goes up one night and finds the Teddy bear and the ink and the French Grammar all lying in the grate. That is against her will. She would prefer the children to be tidy. But on the other hand, it is her will which has left the children free to be untidy. The same thing arises in any regiment, or trade union, or school. You make a thing voluntary and then half the people do not do it. That is not what you willed, but your will has made it possible.

      However, if TULIP is true, it doesn’t make much sense to say that God desires the salvation of all, because He setup a system where His will is the only one which counts for anything.

      • The word “all” in that passage, I was arguing could not literally mean “all”. Reductio ad absurdum. Just like when there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered for taxation, it did not literally mean the entire globe. Or when in John 12:19 the Pharisees say “all the world is gone after Him” it doesn’t literally mean all the world either.
        In Romans 3:23 there isn’t a verse before it that says excludes all from literally meaning all, rather there are verses that support it (3:10 etc.).
        Now if you believe in original sin or that there is none righteous not even one, none that understand, none that seek God, then how can you explain the necessesity under your interpretation of someone seeking God? Or voluntarily choosing. Or in Lewis’s words “tossing up the sponge”. If there isn’t a righteous person. And “tossing the sponge” is a righteous act, then where did the righteousness come from to toss it? We say, from none but God.

    • On the baptism issue, I am not going to defend it, though it makes sense in my mind, it may only be a vestige of when I was Baptist. It may be wrong, though I do not realise why it would be.

      Well, you didn’t present a positive case, just pointed out that Hebrews speaks of “washings” in the plural without much explanation as to its significance… but yeah, let’s leave it.

      “Surely you’re not saying that any baptised child who dies prior to the amporphous “age of reason” would be lost since they did not “believe”?”
      I like the fact that you put believe in quotation marks. I in fact don’t think the Baptist notion that you have to be a certain age to belive is truth. The matter of belief is whoever God has chosen to give the grace of belief, not depending on the child’s ability to believe; and even then, who says, the child does not believe though he cannot articulate his belief?

      You said that “you have to believe to be saved”, but here you say it’s got nothing to do with the child’s ability to believe. That seems like a contradiction and a conflation of “grace” and “faith”. However, I think that, at bottom, it cashes out pretty much identical to the Catholic position although you seem unsure as to when exactly regeneration takes place.

      “Total Depravity means that the sinner is dead and cannot believe until God regenerates the sinner is regenerated, giving a new nature which is capable of belief.”
      So, I agree that a person cannot believe without regeneration; however, the person cannot be regenerate without belief. Belief comes with regeneration. They are simultaneous as far as I can tell.

      What do you make Sproul and Adams (and Piper, White etc.) who say that “regeneration precedes faith”?

      “I don’t think the definition of regeneration is controversial or even in question…”
      Maybe not. But you have said several times that I was talking “in terms of final regeneration” and by my definition, true regeneration is final.

      The dispute isn’t what regeneration is, it’s whether or not it’s irrevocable. There’s no dispute that an “A” grade is a superb score in a test, whether or not that grade can be taken away from you is another matter entirely.

      “We both agree that man must be regenerated – the dispute is over how this happens.”
      If we are talking of regeneration in terms of a change of heart, then I must deny baptismal regeneration. The heart is not always changed at baptism. Mine wasn’t. I was baptised when I was twelve. But the change of heart did not occur then. It may have happened before that. I think it happened a long while afterwards. I don’t really know. But based on the fruit and my memory of my thoughts, I was not changed in heart then. Of course then I thought baptism a mere symbol of belief but, I do not know whether I believed then, or I believed since I was born. God knows.

      If you don’t know when it happened, how can you necessarily deny baptismal regeneration? What do you understand by the phrase “change of heart” and how are you assessing whether or not it happened?

      I was reborn in baptism. That doesn’t mean that the graces in the Sacrament manifested in my life right away (I’m sure my diapers were as revolting as always!). There are several points in my childhood and adulthood which I see as fundamentally important moments of conversion and kindling of my faith (2 Timothy 1:6), but that doesn’t mean I have to deny baptismal regeneration.

      The resources for the study of the Early Church certainly look helpful, and I will definitely check them out, however, I can’t help but think it is very little different from my present idea of the Early Church. Sure, it will give me a more well-rounded idea, but those sources are no doubt just as biased as mine. I plan to read the father’s own words, and plan to begin with St. Athanasius’s On the Incarnation (which, by the way comes with an introduction by C. S. Lewis). Do you have any other recommendations for starting?

      The ones which made the biggest impact to me are available here.

      • What I meant is that the child doesn’t necessarily have to be able to express it to believe. I never had a moment when I realized “I’m scared of heights!” Ive just always been that way.
        As for when regeneration happens, I’m still not sure what is meant when you say that. Before you are baptized if you are an adult, you have to express a desire to be. Shouldn’t some change of heart have happened before that?
        By change of heart I mean from stone to flesh.

        • What I meant is that the child doesn’t necessarily have to be able to express it to believe. I never had a moment when I realized “I’m scared of heights!” Ive just always been that way.

          But you almost certainly haven’t. It, like many other beliefs, developed over time. My nine-month-old nephew has very little sense of danger.

          As for when regeneration happens, I’m still not sure what is meant when you say that. Before you are baptized if you are an adult, you have to express a desire to be. Shouldn’t some change of heart have happened before that? By change of heart I mean from stone to flesh.

          You’ve just flipped back to denying baptismal regeneration… If what you say is true, what is there left for baptism to do?

    • It is the most biblical, God-honouring option, by my study of the Bible.

      I’m not quite sure what makes a doctrinal system “God-honouring” or not, but are you really in a position to say that it is the most biblical? What other systems have you explored?

      Even if I agreed with you on the Church, I would no doubt hold a more Augustinian, or Thomist idea of soteriology.

      …which is totally permissible. Being Catholic doesn’t mean that all diversity of thought has to be abandoned.

      All this is to say, you may try, but, I don’t think you will be able to convince me against the Reformed Doctrines based upon Scripture, when there is so much in scripture that points to it.

      What would it take though?

      We’ve only really dug into a couple of Biblical texts in any depth, but you don’t seem to have any explanation for John’s passage about mortal sin. There are many other texts we could look at, so how many have to pile up before you might concede that Reformed teaching doesn’t make sense of Scripture?

      Likewise, we haven’t looked at too many beliefs of the Early Church, but baptismal regeneration is something universally taught prior to the Reformation without being contested by anyone, so how many other doctrines need to stack up before you might consider that the Reformation departed from the faith passed on by the Apostles?

      Lastly, after our discussion about the canon you seemed to reach a point of agnosticism, not knowing which books should be present, a position which I think undermines any attempt at holding to Sola Scriptura, which is itself an important doctrine to question.

      • “I’m not quite sure what makes a doctrinal system “God-honouring” or not, but are you really in a position to say that it is the most biblical? What other systems have you explored?” I mean that it gives God more glory to say “It was all Him” than “Well, He died, but that was all pointless if I didn’t give my leave for Him to save me. I had to toss the sponge up even if He caught it (He never could have caught it if I didn’t toss it up).” Key word: I.
        As far as I can tell, I explored the reasonable systems. I began as a full-blown Arminian, then went compatiblist. I have now become convinced that the Bible is entirely in favour of the Reformed view-point.
        Let me consider and study the “mortal sin” thing before I make any large assessments.

        “There are many other texts we could look at, so how many have to pile up before you might concede that Reformed teaching doesn’t make sense of Scripture?” Well can you answer me if I ask you what is meant by “he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills” or Ephesians 1:4, 2:4-10, or Prov. 16:9, 19:1, Ps. 37:23, Jeremiah 10:23, all of Romans, and generally the rest of the Bible.

        Your arguments against Sola Scriptura were very good, and I am not totally convinced that I am right (since it is our teaching we can be wrong).

        • I really don’t even think the Arminian view works any longer anyway. If Christ’s purpose was to save (all) sinners, and he did not save (all) sinners, then Christ has failed (is a failure, dead in vain) and I don’t believe God can fail in His plan.

          • I really don’t even think the Arminian view works any longer anyway. If Christ’s purpose was to save (all) sinners, and he did not save (all) sinners, then Christ has failed (is a failure, dead in vain) and I don’t believe God can fail in His plan.

            Did you read the quotation from Lewis earlier? “…That is against her will. She would prefer the children to be tidy. But on the other hand, it is her will which has left the children free to be untidy… That is not what you willed, but your will has made it possible… Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong; I cannot. If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata — of creatures that worked like machines — would hardly be worth creating.”

            Is it unfair to say that Calvinism necessarily reduces us to automata? And without libertarian freedom, how do we explain the presence of evil in the world? We can’t blame humans because they could never have done otherwise. Surely it must mean that God chose that evil – every rape and murder – as he is the only one in this system who can freely choose anything. Worse still, those whom God destined to commit those evil acts are then punished for all eternity in Hell. Where is the flaw in this reasoning?

        • I mean that it gives God more glory to say “It was all Him” than “Well, He died, but that was all pointless if I didn’t give my leave for Him to save me. I had to toss the sponge up even if He caught it (He never could have caught it if I didn’t toss it up).”

          In Mere Christianity Lewis says “A serious moral effort is the only thing that will bring you to the point where you throw up the sponge. Faith in Christ is the only thing to save you from despair at that point: and out of that Faith in Him good actions must inevitably come.” Is this only play acting (for whose benefit?) or did that person every seriously have a choice whether or not to “throw up the sponge”?

          I don’t understand the logic here about glory. I understand the Reformation cry “Soli Deo Gloria”, but Scripture is littered with passages which him sharing his glory with us. God is not petty. God became man so that He could share His glory. God uses fallen man as the very instruments to transmit his divine life.

          I guess I just don’t understand the logic here. Do I not get full credit for giving you a gift unless you accept it? Do I only get credit for graciously presenting you with a gift if I force it upon you?

          • “A serious moral effort” what made you such a jolly good fellow to make that effort, and not your buddy over there? When it says we were “dead in our tresspasses and sins” it doesn’t mean we have enough life to make a serious moral effort. It is precisely our moral part that is dead. We don’t deny that people have a will (check out Jonathan Edward’s *Freedom of the Will*), but it’s back to Augustine to say that we have moral inability, but natural ability. Non posse non peccare.
            I’m not denying that God shares His glory with us (the idea of the moon reflecting the Sun’s light), but the moment we say it’s ours not God’s than it isn’t “Soli Deo Gloria” but “Glory to me for choosing God, but He can have glory for dying I guess.”

            You completely missed my point about God’s failing. Could you address that?
            Adam and Eve had the moral ability to choose to do evil or good. Adam was our federal head, and we all failed in Adam and so deserve Hell. In Christ, God’s elect are made good again. Unless I misunderstand him, R.C. Sproul teaches that the elect have a will like Adam’s (able not to sin). Now if you say it is reducing us to automata (like Lewis did, and I used to) to say that dead in our tresspasses and sins means we cannot do good, that is, that corpses can make choices (or hearts of stone), I don’t really know how to make it more clear. When we are resurrected, we can move, breath and make choices again.
            Now if God did not ordain the evil to happen, then how can He ordain good to come of it? Can some evil spoil God’s plan again? Are God’s plans always being thwarted? If He could not prevent evil from happening, how can He cause good to happen. He “sovereignly chooses” not to stop the evil. If He can (or will) not intervene to stop evil, how is that any better than Him being able to but having a different plan, which brings good to His elect. And if He can not stop evil, He is not sovereign any longer.
            We believe God can use evil how He wants, like how He taught Job through it, and He can stop it if He wants.
            He punishes them in Hell because they deserve it. Is it wrong for God to do what He wishes with what is his (Matthew 20:1-16)? He has mercy on whom He has mercy. His ways are not our ways nor His thoughts, our thoughts (they are infinitely higher than ours).
            They deserve mercy no more than we do. Implying that God must have mercy on them implies that they deserve it. No longer is it mercy, but debt. God owes it to them.
            Now I don’t believe God owes mercy or grace to anyone, but that in His sovereighty He chooses to have mercy on some.

          • Psalm 115:1
            “Not to us, O Lord, not to us, but to your name give glory,
            for the sake of your steadfast love and your faithfulness!”

        • what is meant by “he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills” or Ephesians 1:4, 2:4-10, or Prov. 16:9, 19:1, Ps. 37:23, Jeremiah 10:23, all of Romans, and generally the rest of the Bible.

          I’m not sure what the problem is here. Historic Christianity believes that God intervenes in history, pouring out mercy and chastening those who oppose Him. None of this requires Calvinism.

  • Wonderful quote from Mere Christianity: “The Christian is in a different position from other people who are trying to be good. They hope, by being good, to please God if there is one; or — if they think there is not — at least they hope to deserve approval from good men. But the Christian thinks any good he does comes from the Christ-life inside him. He does not think God will love us because we are good, but that God will make us good because He loves us; just as the roof of a greenhouse does not attract the sun because it is bright, but becomes bright because the sun shines on it.”

    • Wonderful quote from Mere Christianity: “The Christian is in a different position from other people who are trying to be good. They hope, by being good, to please God if there is one; or — if they think there is not — at least they hope to deserve approval from good men. But the Christian thinks any good he does comes from the Christ-life inside him. He does not think God will love us because we are good, but that God will make us good because He loves us; just as the roof of a greenhouse does not attract the sun because it is bright, but becomes bright because the sun shines on it.”

      Agreed, but this doesn’t necessitate Calvinism.

      • So if any good come from the Christ-life inside of him, that includes the good necessary to believe. The good is all on God’s side. We cannot choose Him, He must choose us.

  • I suppose I will stick to my premise that the “mortal sin” is the sin Covenant Children can do to apostatize, not the regenerate elect.

  • Two quick notes.
    First, I noticed your nod to our conversation in your podcast episode with Mr. Aquila, and it made me wonder: what exactly do you think Calvinists believe the sacraments do or are?
    Second, I wonder whether you know about St. Prudentius of Troyes who defended double predestination, and also Gotteschalk of Orbais who, seven hundred years before Calvin, believed the same things. What are your thoughts on these?

  • I was just reading the Canons from the Synod of Dort, and these two rejections pertain to our conversation:
    IV
    Who teach that those who truly believe and have been born again can commit the sin that leads to death (the sin against the Holy Spirit).

    For the same apostle John, after making mention of those who commit the sin that leads to death and forbidding prayer for them (1 John 5:16-17), immediately adds: “We know that anyone born of God does not commit sin” (that is, that kind of sin), “but the one who was born of God keeps himself safe, and the evil one does not touch him” (v. 18).
    IV
    Who teach that those who truly believe and have been born again can commit the sin that leads to death (the sin against the Holy Spirit).

    For the same apostle John, after making mention of those who commit the sin that leads to death and forbidding prayer for them (1 John 5:16-17), immediately adds: “We know that anyone born of God does not commit sin” (that is, that kind of sin), “but the one who was born of God keeps himself safe, and the evil one does not touch him” (v. 18).

  • I realize that you are busy, but whenever you get the time, I recommend listening to the talk on “The Authority of Scripture” by Dr. Michael Reeves found here: https://renewingyourmind.org/2022/01/25/the-authority-of-scripture. I would much appreciate hearing your thoughts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.