Dialog with Jerry: Part 3 (The kitchen sink)
Over the last couple of days I’ve been posting (with permission, of course) some of my exchange with a Protestant called Jerry. The final portion of his email took a wide tour of Catholic teaching and contained lots of assertions and various accusations tangential to our main conversation. For the sake of providing him with some basic answers, I responded to each of them briefly…
The Ecumenical Plot
> “This push for unity of all faiths is headed up by the RCC whether people want to see it or not”
Although the Catholic Church has always been concerned with unity, I find this assertion odd. I’ve heard it before but never seen any evidence to back up the claim. After all, one of the main criticisms leveled at the Catholic Church by many Protestants is that she has been notoriously late in coming to the modern ecumenical movement.
Paganism
> “The multitudes of Christianized pagan idols and relics in the catholic churches and even the homes of Catholics…”
Can you get specific here? What are these “pagan idols”? Do you just mean crucifixes, statues and icons?
With regards to “relics”, we not only find scriptural support for relics, but we have historical evidence beginning from 2nd Century concerning their importance:
Afterwards, we collected Polycarp’s bones, being more precious than the most exquisite jewels and more purified than gold, we interred them in a fitting place. There the Lord will permit us, as far as possible, to assemble in rapturous joy and celebrate his martyrdom – his birthday – both in order to commemorate the heroes that have gone before, and to train the heroes yet to come… – Martyrdom of Polycarp
> Don’t even get me started on how the RCC gave a truck load of centuries-old pagan festivals [holy days] a Christian makeover and brought it all into the church.
I’m guessing here you mean Christmas and Easter. The story isn’t quite as simple as you make out and there would be a lot to say here concerning those feasts.
However, I think it’s simpler to get to the heart of the question of Paganism by asking: do you wear a wedding ring? Did your bride carry a bouquet down the aisle? Both of these are Pagan inventions. Why do they get a free pass?
Also, does your congregation hold a “Halloween Alternative” celebration for the kids? Maybe “Reformation Day”? If so, how would that be different? After all, you’re taking over (what you regard as) a pagan holiday…
Faith and Works
> Our salvation is based on trust and faith in God. Not faith in our faith and not works/sacraments. (If we really are the body of Christ we will work the works that He has for us as led by His spirit.)
In James’ epistle, what is James’ criticism of his readers? What is it he says they lack? Faith or works? Works. At no point does James claim that their faith isn’t really faith. He simply tells them that their faith lacks works. He doesn’t seem to think that works automatically happen with faith. The addition of works will make their faith complete, fruitful, and alive. A faith which is incomplete, barren and dead cannot save.
If you look back in Christian history, you’ll find testimony to both the necessity of works and to the efficacy of the Sacraments. If you believe differently you are going against 1,500 years of Christian witness.
Mary
> Mary is not the queen of heaven. She is not the mother of God. (Are you aware that the original “queen of heaven” Semiramus, who the Catholic Mary really represents, was the mother of Nimrod who she later married and by whom she bore a son?)(that was extremely condensed) She was not sinless! She was not immaculately conceived. She did not remain a perpetual virgin after Jesus was born. (He was her “FIRSTborn” and He had siblings) She did not ascend to heaven. We should not pray to her. She does not dole out grace. She is not a co-mediator or a co-redeemer. Her so called “suffering with her son” is not part of our salvation. We should not venerate her or any statue that is supposedly her. Praying with beads is vain repetition.
Before I give some answers to these questions, do you know the Catholic response to these assertions? I ask because when I began to walk away from the Catholic Church I held similar opinions, but I had never once actually sought out the Catholic answers to these very reasonable questions. I’m just interested if you could explain to me why the Catholic Church asserts these things. Given your earlier comments above about Sola Scriptura, I’m afraid I do have my doubts. For example, did you know that the title of “firstborn” was an honouric title to the first born child, regardless of whether or not the woman had any further children?
If you would like to get a better idea of the Catholic approach to Mary, I would invite you to read my article about Mary, Ark of the Covenant. It might also be interesting to compare your view of Mary with that of the fathers of the Protestant Reformation:
One should honour Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat [Luke 1:46-56]. How then can we praise her? The true honour of Mary is the honour of God, the praise of God’s grace. Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God – Martin Luther
The Papacy
> Peter was not the first pope! The rock on which Christ would build His church was the revelation that He was the Messiah, as Peter (a stone) had just declared. The Pope is NOT the vicar of Christ!!!! Um, that’d be the Holy Spirit.
On what basis do you assert that “The rock…was the revelation that He was the Messiah”? If the rock was just the revelation, then it seems a bit odd that Peter then also just happen to get the name of “Rock”.
How would Jesus’ hearers understood His promise to give Peter “the keys of the kingdom”? They would have understood that these keys denoted the authority of the Prime Minister in the Davidic Kingdom, which I explain in this article.
> We should not worship the Pope. (please don’t say they don’t because I have seen lots of photos to prove he accepts worship with no problem)
I agree we shouldn’t worship the Pope. I don’t and neither do my friends. To worship the Pope is idolatry and heresy. However, what do you regard as worship? I’m English and if I met the Queen I would stand when she entered the room and bow. If she was knighting me (some day!) I would kneel before her. Is this worship? No. These are signs of honour.
> We should not “look to” the Pope. We should call no man Father, much less “Most Holy Father”.
I wrote a while ago a response to a similar assertion. I would also invite you to read my friend Joe’s analysis of that verse because, if you interpret it literalistically as you do, then you’re not left with a whole lot of options…
> We should NOT pray to any person (saint?) who has passed from this life. Purgatory is a lie. Praying for people who are already dead is useless! Praying (or paying) for people to get out of purgatory is, I don’t even know what to call that.
Again, do you know the Scriptural basis offered for this? How would a Catholic respond?
If you would ask a friend to pray for you, why would you not ask someone who stands before the throne of God in Heaven? God is “not God of the dead, but of the living”…
Method of Baptism
> Baptize is a Greek word that means immersion.
I’m assuming here that you’re disputing the practice of baptism by sprinkling. Actually baptizo has a range of meanings and doesn’t only mean immersion:
But the Pharisee was surprised when he noticed that Jesus did not first wash [baptizo] before the meal.
– Luke 11:38
If you want to see how the Early Church practised baptism, I’d invite you to look at the Didache, a Church Manual from the First Century:
“Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: …baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit” – The Didache
Scandal
> Pedophilia (of a homosexual nature) abounds in the RCC and always has, this is NOT a new phenomena.
It “always has”? What do you present as evidence for this claim?
However, is there a denomination whose members have not had accusations of pedophilia or some kind of sexual misconduct? I don’t believe one exists.
This is not to excuse the sin, of course. Those who committed these crimes should receive the appropriate and just punishment.
Given that the Catholic Church has a population of about a billion and has existed for two thousand years, isn’t it statistically likely that there will at least be some problems of this nature? For a little bit of perspective, I’d invite you to read this short post here.
When you get down to the essence of your argument though, I don’t really see what asserting that there are sinners in the Church really proves. Didn’t Jesus say that things would be this way?
Confession
> Men cannot forgive anyone’s sins on God’s behalf.
The problem with this statement is that Jesus said the exact opposite, giving men that very authority: “Whoever’s sins you forgive are forgiven…”. Why was He giving his Apostles this authority to forgive sins if they were never to use it?
The Eucharist
> And the mother of it all, in my opinion, is the Eucharist. Transubstantiation. Utterly abominable. Christ was a “victim” once and it was sufficient forever! The mass is as unholy as a thing can be. We eat His flesh and drink His blood in the spiritual sense, not literal. And to think they even bow down and worship and kiss that cracker because it is (supposedly) Christ in the flesh. And God won’t judge these abominations?!
I’d invite you to consider for a moment about what you’re saying here. You are saying that for sixteen hundred years the Church was completely and absolutely wrong. For sixteen hundred years, the souls of Christian martyrs (who gave their lives) and confessors (who suffered) were in grave spiritual peril because of their belief and treatment of the Eucharist:
This food we call the Eucharist, and no one is allowed to partake but he who believes that our doctrines are true, who has been washed with the washing for the remission of sins and rebirth, and who is living as Christ has enjoined.
We do not receive these as common bread and drink. For Jesus Christ our Saviour, made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation. Likewise, we have been taught that the food blessed by the prayer of his word…is the flesh and blood of Jesus who was made flesh. – St. Justin Matyr’s First Apology (c. AD 150)
The Eucharist is truly Jesus’ Body and Blood. The Eucharist is a sacrifice and the medicine of immortality.The Early Church is unanimous in this. If you can prove otherwise, please present your evidence to the contrary.
Reconsidering the Catholic Church
> Anyway, I don’t really know what else to say or how to end this email. As I hope you can see, I will not be converting to Catholicism anytime soon. But I doubt you’ll be unconverting either.
Please remember that I said that I once felt the way you do. However, my mind was changed. When I actually started asking questions and listening to the answers I found cogent logic, Biblical answers and the historic Christian faith.
> “That you were led to convert through researching how the bible came to be and was/are able to overlook the rampant heretical practices of the entire religion truly stumps me.
There was no overlooking, believe me! However, once I saw that you couldn’t disentangle the Bible from the Catholic Church, I started to reassess my view of Catholicism. Have you honestly given the Catholic Church a chance to defend herself? I know that for a long time I did not.
Your constant refrain concerning scandal in the Church suggests to me that this is a significant issue for you. It’s understandable. It is for many people. In fact, during the early centuries of Christianity this was an extremely important and controversial question: should those who denied Christ under persecution, or who surrendered the Holy Scriptures to be burnt, be readmitted to the Church if they repented? Should those ordained members who renounced their faith be able to return to ministry?
There was a schismatic group called the Donatists who said “Absolutely not!”
At the heart of the matter was the question: what is the Church? The Donatists viewed the Church as a School for Saints. The Catholic Church rejected this limited and narrow understanding. Instead, She said that the Church was a Hospital for Sinners. She would therefore readmit fallen away Christians if they repented.
As a consequence, the Church often looks (and smells!) like a hospital. The Church is full of medicine, nurses and doctors, but She is also full of damaged people and the walking wounded. There are often outbreaks of disease. It doesn’t always look pleasant, but it is the best place to be for those who need healing. For this, I’m grateful, otherwise I fear I could never be admitted.
God bless,
David.
Powerful conversation. You hit every point my brother and I debate about since he has left the Catholic Church. I will be sure to share this with him and many others who question. Thank you, you did a great job!
Hey Selueni,
Welcome to Restless Pilgrim 🙂
Thanks for your kind words. If there is any particular topic over which your brother has struggled, please feel to let me know and I’ll endevour to do a post on that subject at some point in the future.
God bless,
David.
Can you give me a couple of examples “That which was not written down we call Sacred Tradition.”? Where has Rome given a list of these unwritten Sacred Traditions?
> Where has Rome given a list of these unwritten Sacred Traditions?
You want a written list of things unwritten? 😉
> Can you give me a couple of examples “That which was not written down we call Sacred Tradition.”?
Sure. One example would be the Table of Contents page you have in your Bible. From where do you derive this?
Other examples would concern the Sacraments. This is why we see commonality in the Eucharistic liturgies of the Church. It’s also the reason we find universal testimony in the the Early Church that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist and that Baptism washes away sin.
Earlier I asked you if you consider baptism by sprinkling as valid. You never answered, but my guess is that you don’t. However, we have universal testimony from the First Century that sprinkling is a valid form.
So there is no official list of these ” unwritten Sacred Traditions”. How can you then know what they are if you don’t know what they are or who came up with them if they are not written down?
The table of contents in the Bible is the result of the books of the Bible. You can’t have a table of contents in a Bible without the books of the Bible,
Augustine said about the Lord’s supper:
“The Lord did not hesitate to say: “This is My Body”, when He wanted to give a sign of His body” (Augustine, Against Adimant).
He [Christ] committed and delivered to His disciples the figure of His Body and Blood” (Augustine, on Psalm 3).”
“The doctrine concerning the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, not coming into special discussion, remained indefinite and obscure [during the period from 100-325 AD]. The ancient church made more account of the worthy participation of the ordinance than of the logical apprehension of it. She looked upon it as the holiest mystery of Christian worship, and accordingly, celebrated it with the deepest devotion, without inquiring into the mode of Christ’s presence, nor into the relation of the sensible signs to his flesh and blood. It is unhistorical to carry any of the later theories back into this age; although it has been done frequently in the apologetic and polemic discussion of this subject.”
Philip Schaff’s History of the Church – Passages on the Eucharist
Sprinkling water over someone is not NT baptism. NT is immersion. According to Strong’s concordance, the word βαπτίζω, ‘baptizo,’ is translated as…
“baptize” 76 times, “wash” twice, “baptist” once, and “baptized once. It means to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk). 2 to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one’s self, bathe.”
There is no example in Scripture of baptism meaning to sprinkle.
> So there is no official list of these ” unwritten Sacred Traditions”
You don’t see the irony in this?
> How can you then know what they are if you don’t know what they are or who came up with them if they are not written down?
I gave you some examples in the previous response and also referred to the “consensus patrum”. If you wanted another example, can you point me to the passage in the Bible where it tells Christians that they are to no longer observe the Sabbath and should instead worship on Sunday?
> The table of contents in the Bible is the result of the books of the Bible.
I think you’ve rather missed the point here. How do you know what books make up the Bible? For example, how do you know that the Epistle of James is inspired Scripture? Luther didn’t think it was and wanted to relegate it to an appendix in his Bible. Why was he wrong? Likewise, why should the Epistle of Barnabas not be included in the New Testament?
> Augustine said about the Lord’s supper…
Are you seriously going to claim that Augustine didn’t believe in the Real Presence? I’m going to guess that you found this quotation on a website and you haven’t actually read any of Augustine. Quoting sources without having read them is a rather dangerous strategy…
> “…” – Philip Schaff’s History of the Church
Again, why should I care about what one Protestant scholar has to say? His analysis is also pretty woeful. If you want to know what the Early Church thought about the Eucharist, you can read them in their own words here.
> Sprinkling water over someone is not NT baptism.
Okay, now this is really important to highlight because you’ve just demonstrated something. Earlier, you were complaining that we find no explicit First Century witness to infant baptism…yet when I can show First Century witness to baptism by pouring, you dismiss it out of hand. This shows that history does not matter to you at all. If that’s the case, why bother complaining about the historical record concerning infant baptism?
> According to Strong’s concordance, the word βαπτίζω, ‘baptizo,’ is translated as…
One of the possible meanings of the word according to Strong’s is “to wash” or “to make clean with water”, which is entirely compatible with the modes of baptism described in the Didache which includes pouring/sprinkling.
You’re making the same mistake you did with prayer – picking out one possible meaning of a word out of the range of possible meanings and then arbitrarily choosing it to be the only meaning of that word.
Please consider Luke 11:38. We are told that “the Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash [baptizo] before dinner.”. Clearly this isn’t referring to immersion. So, why assume that other usages of the word must mean immersion?
Douglas over at Soul Device does a good job of showing the linguistics on this subject.
Where did the church in the 2nd century officially define the nature of the Lord’s supper? This is necessary given that no one speaks for the entire church. Not even a church father. If you can produce some official document by the all the leaders of the church then Schaff was wrong. If not, then he is right.
NT baptism is immersion because it represents the death and resurrection of Christ. See Romans 6:3-4.
You have no way to know what these “unwritten Sacred Traditions” are since there does not exist a list of what they are.
We know James is Scripture because it was written by an apostle who was the blood brother of Christ.
> Where did the church in the 2nd century officially define the nature of the Lord’s supper? This is necessary given that no one speaks for the entire church.
…but if every…single…father…when speaking of the Eucharist speaks of Jesus really present and speaks of it as a sacrifice we have a consensus patrum.
However, as we’ve seen with the question of baptism by pouring, history is irrelevant to you if it conflicts with your personal interpretation of Scripture.
> NT baptism is immersion because it represents the death and resurrection of Christ. See Romans 6:3-4.
That’s your fallible application of Paul’s teaching. Do you think all the Church Fathers were ignorance of this epistle?
> You have no way to know what these “unwritten Sacred Traditions” are since there does not exist a list of what they are.
I’ve told you where we find them. You’re applying a faulty understanding of Sacred Tradition. If you read the Fathers you’d see how they apply the term.
> We know James is Scripture because it was written by an apostle who was the blood brother of Christ.
How do you know that? Also, why not the Epistle of Barnabas?
A few church fathers do not speak for the entire church. Not all fathers believed as you do. Take this quote from Clement:
Clement’s Paedagogus Book 1, chapter 6,:
“But we are God-taught, and glory in the name of Christ. How then are we not to regard the apostle as attaching this sense to the milk of the babes? And if we who preside over the Churches are shepherds after the image of the good Shepherd, and you the sheep, are we not to regard the Lord as preserving consistency in the use of figurative speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock?… Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; ” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.”
What church fathers explain the meaning of Romans 6:3-4?
How do you know my interpretation of Rom 6:3-4 is fallible? Can you show me where Rome has infallibly interpreted this passage?
The church fathers do not determine what is the ““unwritten Sacred Traditions” are. Even they can’t give you a list of what these ““unwritten Sacred Traditions” are.
> A few church fathers do not speak for the entire church. Not all fathers believed as you do. Take this quote from Clement: …
Oh dear, you’re googling again… Clement is in perfect harmony with Catholic teaching. The Eucharist is a symbol! It’s just not only a symbol. If you had read Clement’s works rather than cherry-picking quotations from a website, you’d see this. Also, if you had followed my link, you’d have seen the fifth quotation was from Clement.
> What church fathers explain the meaning of Romans 6:3-4?
Off the top of my head, Jerome, Augustine, …
> How do you know my interpretation of Rom 6:3-4 is fallible?
Are you claiming it’s infallible?!
> Can you show me where Rome has infallibly interpreted this passage?
Nope, because that’s not how we do things.
> The church fathers do not determine what is the ““unwritten Sacred Traditions” are. Even they can’t give you a list of what these ““unwritten Sacred Traditions” are
All I can do is appeal for you to read them, because if you did you’d start to see why what you say here is inaccurate.
***
I noticed that you didn’t answer my questions about the canon:
1. How do you know the epistle of James was written by an apostle?
2. Why is the epistle of Barnabas not included in the Bible?
There are some good books for you to read on the NT canon. FF Bruce and Kruger both have excellent books on how the NT canon came to be and why.
No one is infallible including your church. If it was, it would have an infallible interpretations of the Scriptures. All interpretations by RC’s are fallible.
There are a number of fathers who did not see the Lord’s supper as you do. The early church of the first few centuries never officially defined the nature of the Lord’s supper.
> There are some good books for you to read on the NT canon. FF Bruce and Kruger both have excellent books on how the NT canon came to be and why.
So you can’t answer those two questions?
My assertion is that you can’t answer those questions without talking about the Catholic bishops of the Early Centuries and the Councils of the Church. If you think it can be done without doing that, you are welcome to try and demonstrate this.
> No one is infallible including your church
But you are? You never answered the question when I asked you if your interpretation was infallible…
> If it was, it would have an infallible interpretations of the Scriptures. All interpretations by RC’s are fallible
This, I’m afraid, betrays that you don’t understand what Catholics believe about infallibility.
> There are a number of fathers who did not see the Lord’s supper as you do
You can’t support this assertion. The most you can do is google to find some cherry-picked quotations which appear to support your case. I can guarantee you that in every case they will be teaching Catholic doctrine.
In the Early Church, you find universally attested the belief that Jesus is really present in the Eucharist and that it is a sacrifice. No exceptions.
> The early church of the first few centuries never officially defined the nature of the Lord’s supper
What exactly would you expect this to look like? The Church is still under persecution and spread across the entire Roman Empire! The Church doesn’t even able have its first Ecumenical Council until the Fourth Century!
I did answer your question on infallibly–“No one is infallible including your church.”
Give me the specifics on how James came to be included in the canon of the NT. On what basis was it included? How did the church of the 4th century decide on James?
Have you ever read the complete set of over 35 volumes of the church fathers? I’m not talking about a quote book but the volumes of their actual writings.
Schaff is right. There is no official defining of the nature of the Lord’s supper in the first 3 centuries at least. If there was, you would have produced some official documentation that shows this.
> Give me the specifics on how James came to be included in the canon of the NT. On what basis was it included? How did the church of the 4th century decide on James?
C’mon, I asked the question… However, so you know, my answer involves the witness of the Early Church Fathers and the following Church Councils: Synod of Rome (AD 382), Council of Hippo (AD 393), First and Second Councils of Carthage (AD 397 & AD 419).
> Have you ever read the complete set of over 35 volumes of the church fathers? I’m not talking about a quote book but the volumes of their actual writings.
Nope, but I’ve covered the vast majority of the works of the apostolic fathers. How much have you read?
> Schaff is right. There is no official defining of the nature of the Lord’s supper in the first 3 centuries at least
On what are you basing your agreement? You read my survey of the Early Church, right?
> If there was, you would have produced some official documentation that shows this.
I asked before: what would count as “official defining”? Every single Father describes it in Real Presence, sacrificial terms. What more is needed.
We don’t have the Council of Nicaea until AD 325 which explicitly articulates the full divinity of Christ. Do you think that the Church didn’t believe that prior to this “official defining”?
Your answer on James only tells me what a council concluded and not how they arrived at the conclusion that James was Scripture. Do you think some bishop on his own authority decided that James was Scripture or were there other facts that were involved?
I don’t read the fathers. They are not the source of authority for my beliefs. The Scriptures are. Reading the fathers can be helpful in understanding how certain men believed about some issues. They do not speak for the entire church when they lived. No one does.
An official document would be something that is produced by a council. In the first 3 centuries there was no official ruling by any council on the nature of the Lord’s supper.
In the early church there were different views on how to understand the nature of Christ. That’s why they defined it in the 3rd-4th century. So it was also in how to understand the Lord’s supper.
> Your answer on James only tells me what a council concluded…
I only indicated roughly how I would answer to show that I wasn’t dodging the question. If you recall, it was I who asked you the question…
> I don’t read the fathers.
If that’s the case, might you think your understanding of them is rather impaired? Additionally, perhaps just copying and pasting stuff from other websites isn’t the best way to argue since you don’t know anything about the subject matter?
You would never blindly take someone else’s second-hand opinions about Scripture. You’d want to read it for yourself. If that’s the approach you take with Scripture, why would it be different with the Fathers?
> They are not the source of authority for my beliefs.
Why then argue about history at all? You could save a lot of time if you simply said: “I don’t care about the witness of history. It doesn’t matter to me if everyone in the early Centuries believed in the Real Presence, Baptismal Regeneration etc. If it’s not in Scripture it doesn’t matter to me”. It’d save a lot of time.
> The Scriptures are [authoritative]
But again we come back to the problem of discerning what is and isn’t Scripture without referencing Catholic bishops and Catholic Councils.
> An official document would be something that is produced by a council. In the first 3 centuries there was no official ruling by any council on the nature of the Lord’s supper.
This standard is unrealistic for a persecuted Church. There was no Ecumenical Council, on the subject of the Eucharist or anything else, until AD 325! You’ve set yourself a standard by which there is no official teaching on anything for the first three centuries!
> In the early church there were different views on how to understand the nature of Christ. That’s why they defined it in the 3rd-4th century. So it was also in how to understand the Lord’s supper.
So at what Council was that Eucharistic controversy addressed? By the logic you’ve presented, the absence of a Council addressing this subject would indicate uniform, unchallenged belief, yes?
Claiming that the church of the 4th century included James in the NT canon does not tell us why they did. I was asking you why it was included and on what basis.
I have yet to meet anyone who has read all the fathers and is an authority on them. RC’s quote them but I’m not convinced they quote them in context since they have not read all of them nor even understand many of the contexts in which they wrote.
Church history does matter. Its in history that we find many problems for the claims for the RCC. The papacy for example does not hold up to historical scrutiny. Church history is no friend of the RC.
It is not necessary to discuss what is and what is not Scripture given that we agree on 66 books of Scripture. We can debate the apocrypha later if you want.
It is not unrealistic to ask for an official document from the entire church on a matter. If there is none to be had then you cannot claim it was believed by the entire church. Let history speak for itself without trying to read back into church history RC doctrines that were not believed then.
> Claiming that the church of the 4th century included James in the NT canon does not tell us why they did. I was asking you why it was included and on what basis.
I was only giving you an indication as to how I would answer to show you that I wasn’t dodging your question.
However, if you recall, it was I who asked you how you justify the New Testament canon…which haven’t even tried to do…at all. As I said, I don’t think it can be done without talking about Catholic bishops and Catholic councils…
> I have yet to meet anyone who has read all the fathers and is an authority on them
There’s a reason for that! To have read all writings of the Fathers would require someone to read eight hundred years of documentation! These guys were the prolific authors of the Early Church – they wrote a lot!
However, one does not have to have read every single father to talk about the state of the Church in, say, the First Century.
I’ve known Protestants take a line of argumentation in which they set up the unrealistic and arbitrary standard whereby they will refuse to listen to anything about the Early Church unless the person speaking to them can prove that they’ve read every single word. I hope you’re not taking that route because it’s an extremely weak argument…
> RC’s quote them but I’m not convinced they quote them in context since they have not read all of them nor even understand many of the contexts in which they wrote
It’s rather sad you say this from a position of purposeful ignorance of the Fathers. If you want to prove your (unfounded) claim, you’re going to have to read the Fathers yourself and then demonstrate how it is that Catholics (and Orthodox) are quoting them out of context.
If you want to start somewhere, I’d suggest reading the seven epistles of Ignatius of Antioch. I have the text and the audio available here.
> Church history does matter
Really? Because you dismiss out-of-hand baptism by pouring despite continual, unchallenged witness from the First Century until the time of the Reformation (1,500 years)…
> Its in history that we find many problems for the claims for the RCC. The papacy for example does not hold up to historical scrutiny
I’m rather shocked that you continue to make assertions about history when you admit you haven’t ready any of the revenant primary sources…
> Church history is no friend of the RC
If that’s the case, then you have a conundrum to solve: why is it that so many Protestants convert to Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy after encountering the Fathers? Seriously, virtually every conversion story I’ve read makes reference to them…
> It is not necessary to discuss what is and what is not Scripture given that we agree on 66 books of Scripture. We can debate the apocrypha later if you want
Oh, I think it’s highly relevant. It gets to the very heart of the issue because it gets to the issue of authority and it also shows that, albeit unwittingly, Protestantism is indebted to the Catholic Church for so many, many things…
> It is not unrealistic to ask for an official document from the entire church on a matter. If there is none to be had then you cannot claim it was believed by the entire church.
It is unrealistic since the Church was still underground! However, if we find every single father saying the same thing on a subject and there is no indication whatsoever that this belief was contested, why would you assume anything different?
You missed my two questions earlier which get to the heart of this and I’d appreciate it if you answered it: “…at what Council was that Eucharistic controversy addressed? By the logic you’ve presented, the absence of a Council addressing this subject would indicate uniform, unchallenged belief, yes?”
> Let history speak for itself without trying to read back into church history RC doctrines that were not believed then.
Okay, let’s do a test… Give me just a single quotation from any Christian in the first millennium who believed that Baptism was only symbolic.
David, this was a great article that I just read for the first time.
Roscoe, I am enjoying the discussion you and David are having.
You said,
“I don’t read the fathers. They are not the source of authority for my beliefs.”
I didn’t read the fathers, and certainly didn’t consider them an authoritative source either. When I first began reading them it was because I was so frustrated with how the evangelical church was missing the mark on worship. I wanted to know how the early church viewed it.
Today, I consider these Fathers my hero’s, my brothers in the faith. We have what we have, because of them. Their lives are inspiring, their written documents challenging, and their willingness to die for the gospel earns them the respect of at least being heard.
Every time I read them, my faith is strengthened and enriched. I can’t imagine being a follower of Christ and NOT reading them. I encourage you to do the same.
Just read the Didache and let them minister to your soul, as you would a pastor. Don’t approach them with the attitude that you are going to have to become Catholic if you give them a fair reading.(sorry David) I have the whole thing written out at my blog and the first 4 chapters are here:
http://notforitchingears.com/2011/09/26/monday-mornings-with-the-early-church-fathers/
Pligrim,
The church determined the New Testament canon by using various “tests” to determine if such a book should be considered Scripture. The first was apostolic. Was it written by an apostle or one associated with an apostle? Was the book used in the churches? Did the book tell the truth about God? Was the writer confirmed by acts of God?
How many full volumes of the fathers have you read? Do each of these fathers claim to speak for the entire church when they write?
What church father in the late first and second century determined that pouring water over someone was to be practiced instead of immersion for baptism? If such a person said such a thing who gave him the authority to teach this?
Here is what a Roman Catholic scholar says about the papacy: “We must conclude that the New Testament provides no basis for the notion that before the apostles died, they ordained one man for each of the churches they founded…”Was there a Bishop of Rome in the First Century?”…the available evidence indicates that the church in Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than by a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century” (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 80,221-222).
The Roman Catholic church has authority but its authority is limited by the Scripture. If it teaches (and it does) things contrary to Scripture then it is to be rejected as an ultimate authority. It should be listened to when it teaches the truth but rebuked when it does not.
If the church was “underground” and never officially claimed something then we must accept that it did not say anything about it. Since the fathers do not have the authority to speak for the entire church then we are limited only to the Scripture as being the ultimate authority.
It looks like Trent dealt with a Eucharistic controversy.
How could baptism not be a symbol or ritual that is meant to identify a person as being buried and raised like Christ was?
Hi Roscoe,
“What church father in the late first and second century determined that pouring water over someone was to be practiced instead of immersion for baptism?
Here is an excerpt from the Didache, a very early document that may have been in existence during the time of the Apostles. In the short section I include below, you can clearly see that baptism by immersion was the norm when “flowing” water, presumably a stream or river, was available. When it wasn’t, pouring water over the head of the one being baptized was acceptable.
It would seem that the early church did not make a big deal about it.
Chapter 7: Concerning Baptism
7:1 Concerning baptism, you should baptize this way: After first explaining all things, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in flowing water.
7:2 But if you have no running water, baptize in other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, then in warm.
7:3 If you have very little, pour water three times on the head in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.
7:4 Before the baptism, both the baptizer and the candidate for baptism, plus any others who can, should fast. The candidate should fast for one or two days beforehand.
Jim,
Reading the fathers is a good thing. Someday I may read them.
Hi Roscoe,
If you are like me, you have a TON of books you read from contemporary people you trust.
I look at it this way: If I seek out the opinion of contemporary leaders, why wouldn’t I seek out the writings of those closer to Apostolic times?
Put another way, why would I value the opinion of modern day “authorities” on the US Constitution, when I can read the actual documents of the founding fathers.
I say, go to the source!
Hi Jim,
Do you think the church fathers when they wrote determined what the entire church believed at the time they wrote?
I do agree that the fathers can tell us some things about their experiences and thinking about their churches they were in. Not sure they had a “birds-eye” view of all that was going on when they were alive though.
“Do you think the church fathers when they wrote determined what the entire church believed at the time they wrote?”
I think that by the time of the early church fathers, the faith had been once for all delivered to the saints.
Their writings help us better understand what that faith embodied.
2000 years removed from things, we might argue that the only acceptable form of baptism is by immersion. We would have a good leg to stand on, because the only kind of baptisms we encounter in the NT were immersion.
Yet, the Scriptures no where command or otherwise demand that baptism be done this way alone. That is a very important fact. The absence of the clear command leads us to infer things. But the early church would also have been missing this command, because it is not contained in any of the writings that circulated at the time which are now in the New Testament.
What they did in regards to baptism sheds tremendous light on the topic for us 2000 years later. For if they baptized by immersion or pouring, and either form was acceptable, then it probably was acceptable.
The Didache is also called “The Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles by the Twelve Apostles” as well as “The Teaching to the Twelve Apostles” and simply “the Teaching”. Scholars believe that it reflects a time closer to Paul and James, who died in the 60’s, than it does to Ignatius, who died sometime after 110.
That means this document was circulating when some of the Apostles were still alive or very near the death of John. Which, if true, means that what it says on the topic might be more relevant than someone 1500 years later.
It should say “The Teaching OF the Twelve Apostles. David, can you fix that?
Jim,
If as you wrote that “I think that by the time of the early church fathers, the faith had been once for all delivered to the saints.” then this creates a serious problem for RC’s because they have doctrines that the apostles never taught such doctrines as indulgences, the Marian dogmas and an infallible papacy to name a few.
If “The absence of the clear command leads us to infer things” then all kinds of things and doctrines can be justified. For example, some Muslims believe that Muhammad is the Advocate that Jesus predicted. I could also by this principle claim that the pope is the anti-Christ.
It is best to think that baptism in the NT and the early church was immersion because fits the symbolism of being buried with Christ (Romans 6:1–4; Colossians 2:12
Just so you know, I’m not a Catholic. I love David’s site because he is a great thinker. He asks hard questions that challenge Protestants. That’s why I hang out here. I consider him a brother in Christ.
“this creates a serious problem for RC’s because they have doctrines that the apostles never taught such doctrines as indulgences, the Marian dogmas and an infallible papacy to name a few.”
Does this also not create a serious problem for us Protestants?
Point me to the chapter and verse that commands us to break up the unity of believers, and start as many different types of denominations as we can ever imagine, or have a worship band, or seeker-sensitive worship services, or any host of things David will undoubtedly bring up.
Show me the chapter and verse that tells the church to have a Harvest festival on Halloween as an outreach to the lost, or take an offering for the church expenses. It’s not there.
We infer those things, do we not?
We have just as many issues to reconcile ourselves, and I submit to you that we may have more to figure out. Both the East and the West have a considerable amount of historical data on their side, backing up their views.
The church throughout history has always, always, always held Mary in high esteem. Is that wrong? I don’t think so. Was she a perpetual virgin, I don’t think so, BUT I recognize I am in the minority on this one church history wise. I also don’t think believing Mary was a perpetual virgin or that we one can pray to her is heretical. To me it is a “Whatever” issue.
On Papal authority, the West and the East both disagree on this, so for me it’s another “Whatever” issue. It certainly isn’t heresy and it is not the critical issue.
“If “The absence of the clear command leads us to infer things” then all kinds of things and doctrines can be justified”
Don’t we do this? The baptism of the Holy Spirit: THE evidence of this is speaking in tongues. IF you are a Pentecostal this is true, if you are not, then it isn’t true. But how do we know which is true? Without arguing that one, let’s just say each side makes very strong arguments based on inference.
What about the Trinity? No where in scripture does it categorically state that God is triune. But He is, and we know that, because of the Catholic church. That was for David! Seriously, we know this because we can look at the scriptures and see that there is a person called Father who is God and there is a person called the Son who is also called God and there is a person called the Holy Spirit who is likewise referred to as God. We also know that God is One! So we connect the dots and conclude by inference what the Catholic church came to understand many, many years ago: that God is 3 in 1.
If we are going to call out the RC for those things we believe it holds to that are wrong, I think we must not be guilty of violating those same principals. That’s only fair. The pot can’t call the kettle black and think it is having a fair argument.
Jim,
Are you willing to accept that the Roman Catholic church does teach false doctrines because they are contradict Scripture?
Why do assume that that Protestants have broken the unity amongst believers? There are various reasons that there have been splits in Protestant churches. Some are for church growth. However, there are some over serious theological reasons such as homosexuality. Some church splits probably are not valid. The way to determine if a church is of Christ is to look at its statement of faith and doctrines. If their doctrines are supported by Scripture then they are of Christ. If not, then they are not. It’s at this point that the Roman Catholic church is not in harmony with what the apostles taught.
Having a outreach to the lost is not unbiblical. Harvest festivals are just a “mechanism” used by some churches to get people to come to their churches.
Never claimed Protestants don’t have problems.
The Roman Catholic church does not just hold Mary is high esteem but defies her as a goddess. Just read some of the devotional material about her such as the Glories of Mary and you will indeed see that she is to be worshiped. We are not to pray to the dead. The Marian dogmas are heretical.
If you exegete the passages in Scripture that show Mary’s relationship to her children you will find that she was not a perpetual virgin. There are over 15 reasons that show Mary did have children of her own after Jesus was born. What this means is the claims of the RCC cannot err in matters of faith is not true.
Something’s we don’t know with certainty from Scripture and there will be disagreements.
The Trinity is well supported from Scripture.
Roscoe,
Yes I am willing to accept that the Catholic church teaches things that may not be true. I will also accept the charge that the Protestant church, in all its forms, teach things that may not be true.
But I also am willing to accept that both teach many things that are true. In the case of the Catholic church, it has been teaching things that are true since the beginning. Are you willing to accept that? Or do you believe that the RC church only teaches false doctrine?
The fact that a denomination or church, teaches something that may be false, doesn’t necessarily mean that it is involved in heresy and should be rejected in its entirety.
For example: You have Reformed churches that are hard core committed to Calvin’s view of the Scriptures, and you have Pentecostal/Charismatic churches who hold opposite views. Either both are not teaching things that are in harmony with the Apostles or one of them is. Both can’t be right on the same issue. . Does this make one a false church and the other the true church?
“Why do assume that that Protestants have broken the unity amongst believers? There are various reasons that there have been splits in Protestant churches.”
Because history unequivocally demonstrates that the Reformers split away from the Catholic church. Yes, there were good reasons for that move, but it was our move. The fruit of that move is clearly seen today. How can you argue otherwise with a straight face?
On a side note, I often wonder what would have happened if the reformers remained in the church and tried to reform it from within.
“Having a outreach to the lost is not unbiblical. Harvest festivals are just a “mechanism” used by some churches to get people to come to their churches.”
I agree with you here. However, you and I both recognize that nowhere in the scriptures do the Apostles tell us to adopt a pagan holiday and use it for evangelistic purposes. So, at this point, those who do it are not in harmony with what the Apostles taught. We have to be consistent in our arguments. We infer that it is ok, based upon other things. But this in NOT a practice we find anywhere in the New Testament. Why are Protestants allowed to do whatever we want, but when the Eastern and Western Churches have practices that we disagree with, they are immediately suspect because they are not in our version of the Bible?
“If you exegete the passages in Scripture that show Mary’s relationship to her children you will find that she was not a perpetual virgin. There are over 15 reasons that show Mary did have children of her own after Jesus was born. What this means is the claims of the RCC cannot err in matters of faith is not true”
I agree with you on this one. If I understand you correctly, the larger issue for you is the infallibility of the church, correct? Mary being a perpetual virgin or not, makes no difference to me, and God will surely not reject a person for believing that she was, or even esteeming her as the scriptures declare she would be.
I think every church is fallible, don’t you? My reformed brothers believe the Westminster Confession contains the true and unerring version of the faith. I don’t think so, myself.
I agree about the Trinity. My point was that nowhere in the Bible do the Apostles state that God is triune. We figured out that He had to be in order for Scripture to not be contradictory.
“The way to determine if a church is of Christ is to look at its statement of faith and doctrines. If their doctrines are supported by Scripture then they are of Christ. If not, then they are not. It’s at this point that the Roman Catholic church is not in harmony with what the apostles taught”
I don’t have a problem with this definition. The challenge is this: who decides if a particular churches doctrine is supported by Scripture? Each Church? Because each Protestant church can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that what it teaches is true and fully supported by Scripture. At least to itself.
So back to my Reformed brothers, they believe that they preach the true gospel. They look at anyone holding Arminian views as teaching false doctrine, un-supported by scripture. Which wing of the Protestant church will this definition condemn into a false church, alongside the RC?
Charismatic vs non-charismatic? Which is a true church, which is a false and heretical church? You tell us.
Of course we could go on and on. At some point, at least in the eyes of the denominational leaders, there will be one true church, which preaches the cleanest and most accurate gospel. Which church is that? The one that they lead.
You and I have a lot we agree on, I am sure. I enjoy these discussions. What shapes my opinions on these matters is the scriptures as interpreted by the early church, not the reformers, even though I have a degree in theology and was a lead pastor for over 10 years. I believe “our” church has made a huge mess of things. I sit in an uncomfortable place: to my right, I have the Eastern and Western versions of the church, to my left I see 30,000 protestant churches, and I see problems with both sides.
I’m OK with the tension at this point. I was like you for many years, and I could not bring myself to the point of even questioning the Reformers. Now that I can and do, I think I can see both sides of the argument better.
The reason I love David’s site, is because he brings it every post! I may not agree with his conclusions, but he’s fair and logically consistent. I have watched you guys debate issues, and I can see from some of your answers that you don’t know how to answer some of his questions. I see my own struggles in your answers, but I also see a person who may not be able, at this point, to questions the Reformers. I get that, because I was there myself.
I no longer have a problem questioning the Reformers and where they have led the church these past 500 years. The reason: the early church and the early church Fathers.
Jim,
I agree that some protestant churches teach things that are not true.
There is a difference in the terms Catholic and Roman Catholic. They are not the same things. Roman Catholics for example teach things that other churches do not teach. They do teach correctly on some things but not on others. These “other” things were not taught by Christ or the apostles.
I agree there are degrees of error but we should not diminish how wrong this is though. Each church and member has the responsibility to know the truth and keep it.
Actually it was Rome who strayed from the truth and not the Reformers. The Reformers brought to light again the glorious gospel of Christ that Rome had denied through its doctrines, practices and structure.
What do you think of the fruit of Rome that led to the inquisitions, crusades and the fraudulent grounds for building their churches which in large part helped to start the Protestant reformation?
Having an outreach in a community such as a harvest festival is not the same as teaching people to be devoted to Mary, purgatory, indulgences and a celibate leadership. These a very serious matters that affect the souls of men.
It is true that when discussing doctrines and the Scripture with a Roman Catholic that what is at stake for the Roman Catholic is the infallibility of the Roman Catholic church who claims it cannot err in matters of faith and morals. What this means is that no matter if you show via the Scripture that Mary had other children of her own the Roman Catholic will have to reject your correct exegesis to protect the infallibility claim. He cannot allow this since his faith in his church is to strong to accept that it can and has erred. Protestants don’t have this burden since we know that no man is infallible except the Lord Jesus.
Most doctrines that we believe with confidence are firmly grounded in Scripture and there really is no dispute about among various churches. Those that we don’t agree on 100% do not affect salvation or sanctification.
Any church that denies the gospel is a false church and is to be rejected. Trent denied the gospel in some of its canons. See canons 9, 12, 14, 23, 24, 30.
I don’t buy the idea that there are “30,000 protestant churches” charge. Most Protestant churches agree on the essentials such as the deity of Christ, His death and resurrection and the 66 books of the Scriptures. Also Jesus did pray His followers would be one. This is true of those who are in Christ. It does not mean they would agree on everything. If it does, then no church can claim this including the Roman Catholic church since many of its members do obey its teachings.
I don’t think Roman Catholics know the whole story of the church history. I find many times they read back into church history things that are not supported by the facts. The papacy is one example of this.
My focus has always been to start with the Scripture since they are the foundations of the faith that delivered to us by the apostles. All doctrines are to be judged by them which is where Roman Catholics have such problems. Enjoy discussing with you.
Hi Roscoe,
Any good Arminian wouldn’t have a problem with Canon 23 🙂
I’m curious as to what to you think about the Eastern Orthodox church?
Jim,
Don’r know much about them.