/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

It's not a great sign when the guys argument doesn't work from the very first paragraph.

>I certainly don't object to authority. It's necessary in social life. And I don't object to religious authority. God is the supreme authority figure. The Bible is the supreme authority in evangelical theology and ethics. I do, however, object to partitioning authority from truth and evidence.

Why is the Bible the supreme authority? The Bible is not an authority itself, it derives its authority from both:

1. It's authors who were inspired and followers of Christ

2. The process of developing an official canon which was created and approved by the Church

>Bryan skews the issue by reclassifying the interpretive act as "interpretive authority". But why should we accept that characterization? What necessarily (or even usually) makes interpretation an exercise of authority?

Shouldn't it be obvious? Texts can be read in different ways. If you want to get to what the author was truly saying you need an authority to interpret for you. Interpretation is an exercise of authority because when two people differ on the reading of a text one of them has to be wrong, they can't both be right. So who determines which reading is right? People imbued with authority. If there is no authority then there is no truth, you can read whatever you want into the Bible and nobody can say your reading is incorrect because by their own admission they have no authority to determine what interpretations are right and which are wrong.

>I'd reverse Bryan's argument. Since Christians aren't united in one faith in a visible catholic Church

They are. Anyone who exists outside the church isn't a Christian.

>>711524

>Shouldn't it be obvious? Texts can be read in different ways. If you want to get to what the author was truly saying you need an authority to interpret for you. Interpretation is an exercise of authority because when two people differ on the reading of a text one of them has to be wrong, they can't both be right. So who determines which reading is right?

Whoever has the better arguments is right.

>>711524

> you can read whatever you want into the Bible

Do you think that you need the Magisterium to interpret successfully, for example, that in the Parable of the Weeds, "the one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man".

Of course not: you have to admit that, at least in this case, one can easily interpret Scripture with Scripture.

If somebody claimed "I think that the one who sowed the good seed is actually Boba Fett" then I sincerely hope your response would be:

"No, that's just objectively not the reading of the text, and the fact that there has been no official declaration from the Magisterium defining the meaning of this passage doesn't meaning that it cannot be correctly perceived."

>>711524

>Why is the Bible the supreme authority? The Bible is not an authority itself, it derives its authority from both:

Read the full sentence you quoted.

>“I don't object to religious authority. God is the supreme authority figure. The Bible is the supreme authority in evangelical theology and ethic”

He’s not making a defense of sola scriptura or even arguing for sola scriptura. He’s saying the concept of authority is not alien to evangelical theology. This in response to the other guys claim that “They have no actual authority apart from apostolic succession because without apostolic succession the only available basis for a creed or confession’s authority is the individual’s agreement with the interpretation of Scripture found in that creed or confession.” Essentially, one guy says “no apostolic succession means no authority” and this person is just arguing back that Evangelicals submit to the authority of God and scripture, so they do have standards. If you come out the gate swinging at sola scriptura immediately you’re attacking something that’s barely even peripheral to his main argument.

>>711543

> at least in this case, one can easily interpret Scripture with Scripture.

Some things are obvious, some are not. Without a good understanding of scripture people can easily be led astray. Arianism for example is an insidious heresy because it "makes sense" to people who have the most superficial understanding of scripture. They see these quotes about Jesus talking about the Father and "Why do you call me good? Only God is good" and go "Wow, these Jehovahs Witnesses are right! Jesus was only a prophet, not God!". They don't understand the significance of Jesus forgiving sin, something that only God can do, or him stating "Before Abraham was I AM" directly naming himself as the one who Moses spoke to in the burning bush.

>"No, that's just objectively not the reading of the text, and the fact that there has been no official declaration from the Magisterium defining the meaning of this passage doesn't meaning that it cannot be correctly perceived."

Correct. But think about it, what happens if there are a significant amount of people who think the one who sowed the seed is Boba Fett? In one case you have people with authority available to say "No, that's incorrect and if you believe that then you're wrong". In the case of protestantism you can never definitively solve the issue because nobody has final authority to interpret. They just get into a prolonged slapfight that ends with them splitting up. Authority to interpret scripture is very important for that reason

>>711547

I should probably note that I’m not a Protestant, just that I found this response not very good

>>711548

>Some things are obvious, some are not

Ok, so now we can get into a more nuanced debate, instead of these silly plebeian internet-Catholic sweeping statements about "you can read whatever you want into the Bible"..

>But think about it, what happens if there are a significant amount of people who think the one who sowed the seed is Boba Fett?

And what if you have a significantly large group of people who misinterpret the teachings of the Catholic Church? At some point, you also have to rely on saying: "The words are clear, and you are just flat out wrong".

Words have meanings, and promoting a kind of selective scepticism where the Bible can't ever be clear enough for religious certainty, but the Magisterium somehow can is very foolish.

Recommended reading:

"How the 17th C. French Catholic use of Pyrrhonian Scepticism against Calvinism created the French Enlightenment Skeptics"

https://rationalityofaith.wordpress.com/2016/10/30/how-the-17th-c-french-catholic-use-of-pyrrhonian-scepticism-against-calvinism-created-the-french-enlightenment-skeptics/

>>711524

What is the purpose of a biblical canon then?

>>711586

>promoting a kind of selective scepticism where the Bible can't ever be clear enough for religious certainty, but the Magisterium somehow can is very foolish.

Why is trusting the magisterium when it comes to what books are canonical perfectly alright but dubious when it comes to interpreting specific books and verses? You're the one who is promoting selective skepticism by acknowledging authority when it comes to establishing canon, codes and creeds but rejecting it when it comes to interpretation.

Consider this. Replace Magisterium with Paul, Peter or Timothy. Does your argument still make sense if you consider that disputes over scripture would be settled by the people who had final authority in the early church? Why would it be any different today? Trusting the Magisterium is far more logical than saying scripture speaks for itself while Protestantism continues splintering into a million different shards. There's a reason the phrase "make like a Baptist church and split" is a thing.

>>711660

> Why would it be any different today?

Because the Apostles had a unique role in history?

>itself while Protestantism continues splintering into a million different shards.

Of course, Catholic internet-apologetics tend to massively overemphasise the degree of disagreement. This is exemplified in the infamously bad "33,000 denominations" number that gets circulated.

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/scottericalt/we-need-to-stop-saying-that-there-are-33000-protestant-denominations

Even when the fraudulent claims like the above are replaced with more realistic estimates, I still think a lot of the number of Protestant denominations are due to

-the abandonment of any real notion of biblical inspiration by many liberal churches.

-many small churches who don't hold particularly eccentric beliefs, and are usually effectively some variety of charismatic Baptists, but who don't see any value in being part of a larger organisational structure.

>>711675

>Because the Apostles had a unique role in history?

The apostles hand picked their successors and gave them authority. Pauls letters to Timothy, the Bishop of Ephesus are right there in the Bible.

>This is exemplified in the infamously bad "33,000 denominations" number that gets circulated.

It's likely a lot more than that. There are plenty of individual churches that end up splitting into separate congregations due to theological differences that don't get counted as separate denominations.

>>711524

The bible is an authority in itself. It derives its authority from its nature as the very word of God alone. By saying it derives its authority from the Church, you're saying either A. The bible is not the word of God or B. God must be granted authority from the Church to speak. Hardly an ideal position, but it's the one you're forced into by raising ecclesiastical authority above divine authority.

>>711678

>It's likely a lot more than that.

How do you figure this?

>>711679

>It derives its authority from its nature as the very word of God alone

Even if you grant that you still have the problem that it was the Catholic church which decided which scripture was the word of God and what wasn't. There's no way around that. Protestants simply like to pretend the canon formed in a vacuum but it was Catholic Bishops guided by the Holy Spirit who decided on it. That's a big problem for you.

>God must be granted authority from the Church to speak

God speaks through His church. It's why Jesus founded the church after all.

>>711680

Because individual Protestant churches regularly split into different congregations due to theological differences. It happens every year. It's happening right now on a large scale within the Episcopal and Baptist churches as the liberal and conservative side of each church gets closer to splitting off into their own denomination.

It's just that nobody bothers to report it when the Fifth Great Lakes Presbybaptist Church of Christ schisms for the 15th time in it's history.

>>711684

>That's a big problem for you.

>>711684

>Even if you grant that you still have the problem that it was the Catholic church which decided which scripture was the word of God and what wasn't

So if one can only know the Canon through an infallible declaration of the Magisterium, then for 1400 years after Christ, Christians had *no* way of telling which books were canonical? That seems like a bizarre conclusion to come to.

Imagine, you are hanging out in some 8th century church and somebody says "Hey guys, there's this book called the Quran. Should we have it in the canon?"

(I've even seen use Catholic apologists use this very example)

You wouldn't say "Oh well, I guess we'll have to wait a few more centuries until the canon is infallibly defined."

You'd be able to point out the radical departure from the rest of New Testament theology that this writing represents. to name just one example.

>>711684

>It's happening right now on a large scale within the Episcopal and Baptist churches as the liberal and conservative side of each church gets closer to splitting off into their own denomination.

And that's not a demonstration of how "both sides of these debates both operate on the same faulty principle: Solo Scriptura":

The liberals *do not believe in the inspiration of Scripture*.

>>711690

>So if one can only know the Canon through an infallible declaration of the Magisterium, then for 1400 years after Christ, Christians had *no* way of telling which books were canonical?

Uh, no. They had the authority of the Church. It's only when Luther had his little tantrum and removed scripture from the Bible that it was necessary to reinforce which books are canonical with an official pronouncement. Remember that the Catholic Church decided the canon in the 5th century, long before the reformation. The reformation necessitated an official "Hey, the deuterocanonicals are scripture" statement, but until then the authority of the Church was more than enough to enforce the accepted standard of 73 canonical books.

>You'd be able to point out the radical departure from the rest of New Testament theology that this writing represents. to name just one example.

You'd be able to point out the successors to the apostles, the Bishops don't accept it which would be a far stronger argument than you as an individual lay person rejecting it since you have no authority and lack the understanding of a true apostolic successor.

>>711524

>Texts can be read in different ways. If you want to get to what the author was truly saying you need an authority to interpret for you. Interpretation is an exercise of authority because when two people differ on the reading of a text one of them has to be wrong, they can't both be right. So who determines which reading is right? People imbued with authority. If there is no authority then there is no truth, you can read whatever you want into the Bible and nobody can say your reading is incorrect because by their own admission they have no authority to determine what interpretations are right and which are wrong.

The basis of this sophism is a hard distinction between interpretation and interpreted text, so that the interpretation is not a logical inference of meaning from the text, but a new notion created ex nihilo in the mind of the interpreter. Otherwise, interpretation could easily be corrected simply by appeal to the text, since that would be the origin of the interpretation. That's why the sophism completely implodes when you say >>711548

>Some things are obvious, some are not.

Since this is an admission that at least some interpretation is derived not from the interpreter but from the text, the whole argument falls apart, since then does it not follow that the correct interpretation in any given case could be achieved simply through proper and thorough study? The argument could be made in sensible form that most or all of scripture is difficult to interpret (rather than the completely absurd and sophistical impossible to interpret), but then the argument would fail to serve its purpose to dismiss the tribunal of scripture and rise papal authority up supreme, since there would be left no more need for a magisterium.

>>711684

>Even if you grant that you still have the problem that it was the Catholic church which decided which scripture was the word of God and what wasn't

I deny that the "Catholic church" as you know it even existed at that time. I also especially deny that any men "decided" what was and was not the word of God, since the word of God is only that which God spoke, any contradictory list from men notwithstanding. I further deny that the canonical list of scripture was made by the deliberate act of any man, but that it developed passively and progressively among the people of God as God made His word known for the same purpose He inspired it in the first place.

>God speaks through His church

God no longer speaks except through His word. All revelation ceased to be given with the death of the last apostle. Since that time God the Holy Spirit has governed His Church immediately through His word.

>It's why Jesus founded the church after all.

The 'Church' of Jesus Christ which scripture refers to is not some earthly organization, but a demographic of men, which existed for thousands of years before the incarnation of Jesus Christ, starting when Adam was brought to repentance.

>It's just that nobody bothers to report it when the Fifth Great Lakes Presbybaptist Church of Christ schisms for the 15th time in it's history.

Isn't that just a convenient way to hand wave away the barren lack of evidence for these 6 million denominations

>>711694

>711694

>. They had the authority of the Church.

The argument is usually that only *infallible* declaration of the Magisterium were sufficient to ground trust in the Canon, and such a declaration only came at Trent.

>It's only when Luther had his little tantrum and removed scripture from the Bible

Only Luther dissented? I think not:

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/01/cajetan-on-canon-hes-ok-bcause-hes-one.html

>you have no authority and lack the understanding of a true apostolic successor.

Imagine being this stubbornly committed to terrible Catholic internet apologetics that you are unwilling to concede that the Quran can be easily perceived to be radically different from the New Testament by anybody.

>>711698

>I deny that the "Catholic church" as you know it even existed at that time

Well you're factually wrong. There was a universal church structure as early as the second century. Who do you think was at the council of the Nicea when they came up with the Nicean creed you accept? Bishops. Bishops of the one, holy, apostolic, Catholic church. And you accept the decisions they made on that day because you accept they had the authority to make those decisions.

>I further deny that the canonical list of scripture was made by the deliberate act of any man, but that it developed passively and progressively among the people of God

Again you run into a big problem here. It developed through people who self identified as members of the Catholic church. So if you're saying that it was God who was moving the pieces then you need to accept that it was God himself who legitimised the Catholic church by the fact that He worked through Catholic bishops in order to construct the canon.

No matter how you squirm you're really painted into a corner. This is why most protestants like to pretend the Bible came down fully formed from heaven, it makes them deeply uncomfortable when you point out the people who compiled it were men who were deeply Catholic in their understanding of the faith.

>>711702

>The argument is usually that only *infallible* declaration of the Magisterium were sufficient to ground trust in the Canon

No, I never said that and I don't believe that. The declaration was only necessary once a group of schismatics tried to edit the Bible to their own liking.

>Only Luther dissented? I think not

Cardinals aren't infallible and can come to incorrect conclusions from time to time.

>>711538

>Whoever has the better arguments is right.

No.

This view led to the current state of affairs where we are justifying pedophilia as a valid lifestyle choice.

Rhetorics are a skill that can be learned and used for good or ill.

Arguments don't save the day. Truth does. And arguments can sway us both ways very easily.

>>711715

You can't really escape from using your reason, though. Because of the nature of their being multiple claimants to infallibility (e.g. Catholicism, Orthodox, The Watchtower, Mormonism), you have to use your own arguments to adjudicate which is correct. You can't accept that an organisation is authoritative on their own authority.

>>711707

>Well you're factually wrong

No I'm not. Your church's retroactive attribution of offices that did not yet exist to historical figures is wrong.

>There was a universal church structure as early as the second century

The churches were institutionally united since Acts 15, actually.

>Bishops. Bishops of the one, holy, apostolic, Catholic church

Yep, catholic, not papal. Not Romish

>And you accept the decisions they made on that day because you accept they had the authority to make those decisions

Well they had the authority to form a council. They had more an obligation than authority to make the decision, since they did not have the authority to make the opposite decision.

>It developed through people who self identified as members of the Catholic church

This might come as a shock to you, but the Protestant reformers also used the term catholic, they used it in reference to themselves. But you're gonna contradict yourself and tell me why self-identification isn't enough lest I should be the one who claims descent from the ancient fathers.

>So if you're saying that it was God who was moving the pieces then you need to accept that it was God himself who legitimised the Catholic church by the fact that He worked through Catholic bishops in order to construct the canon.

Again, the Romish, papal church did not exist. God could hardly have legitimized something that didn't exist.

>No matter how you squirm you're really painted into a corner

I don't feel like I'm in a corner.

>This is why most protestants like to pretend the Bible came down fully formed from heaven

Nobody thinks that, it's just a Roman Catholic strawman.

>>711719

>Yep, catholic, not papal. Not Romish

The Bishop of Rome was well established by then. The title "Pope" wasn't adopted until the 11th Century. So yes, I'm afraid it was Catholic and it was Roman.

>Protestant reformers also used the term catholic

So? None of the churches they created have any of the four marks of the true church. One, Holy, Apostolic and Catholic. The Bishops who called themselves Catholic in the early church were actually part of the One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic church and are part of our tradition.

>I don't feel like I'm in a corner.

Probably because you reject uncomfortable truths like the fact that the Catholic Church existed back when it made declarations in the 4th, 5th and 6th centuries that you consider authoritative and adhere to today.

The problem is, no matter what Hays says, the early Christian fathers are certainly no proto-protestants. One of his key claim is that many Catholic and Protestsnts have examined the history of the Church and found a different assessment than Newman. This is true but today's scholarship on the Early Christians and Fathers are far from Reformed theology.

Hays claim the Church have the divine authority to teach. But whatever that is, one can easily see the large discrepancy between what the early Church taught and Reformed theology. So this adds nothing as Patristic authority merely becomes a pick and choose matter.

>>711726

>The Bishop of Rome was well established by then.

And he wasn't the pope yet

>The title "Pope" wasn't adopted until the 11th Century

And the authority of the pope wasn't until the 7th

>it was Roman

Decidedly not

>None of the churches they created have any of the four marks of the true church

Setting aside the human nature of those marks, they most certainly do. They are One because they all profess one body and one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all. They are Holy because they are clothed in the righteousness of Christ. They are Catholic because they are not exclusive to any nation. And they are Apostolic because they are in submission to the apostolic authority of the New Testament.

>part of our tradition

They could only be considered so inasmuch as their organization eventually after many centuries evolved into yours. But really, we and we alone can claim descent from them, since we alone hold the same faith as them.

>you reject uncomfortable truths like the fact that the Catholic Church existed back when it made declarations in the 4th, 5th and 6th centuries

Funny that every scholar today who is not a Roman Catholic (and even a good deal who are) also reject that "truth"

>>711738

Whatever the Patristic concept of Catholicity is, it isnt the same as the Calvinist view. Multiple canons of Scripture are permitted in the Patristic view and even Protestant scholars like Kelly and Meade agree on this.

The Church Fathers are unanimously Sacramental realists contra Reformed theology.

They also support Baptismal Regeneration which every Nicene father does, so "one Baptism for the remission of sins" is not the Reformed view.

They consider their earlier predecessors as reliable, even Athanasius does and claim the Church throughout the ages taught the same thing. This is not the Reformed view, proven by how they blatantly reject key areas of Patristic beliefs

The Church Fathers deny the view that Atonement's core is satisfaction of divine wrath

They deny Reformed compatabilism

They accept venerating saints and relics

a58750, I hope you're not expecting a (You) for such low effort posts

Also the disunity of Protestant argument is so easy to make. Even if simply two different views on core issues are taken, the disunity is proven. And there is!

1)Sacraments. Prots cant agree on whether they are means of Grace or are necessary for Salvation. Luther and Lutherans say yes, Calvinists dont hold to that strong view and Zwlinglians say no. They cant even agree on Eucharistic presence

2)Lutheran Sola Fide differs from Calvinist Sola Fide as the former is Sacramental in nature, the latter isnt

3)Lutherans are happy to reverence altars in worship. Calvinists see that as idolatrous. Proven by Puritans and what Reformed electors attempted to do with Lutheran subjects

4)Free choice. Some Prots for, some deny. Some disagree on what it is

5)Atonement. Some Limited, others unlimited or some hypothetical universal scope

6)Predestination. Some single, some double

7)Worship. Catholic styled worship idolatry to Puritans and Calvinists, not to Lutherans. Anglicans cant even agree

8)Icons and images. Idolatry to some, ok for others

9)Assurance of salvation. Lutheran as sacramental, Calvinists through practical syllogism

>>711741

I dont expect a coward to be able to face the truth

>>711743

You know what I think, anon? I think you're Malaysian

>>711740

These seem like pretty good points to me. Isn't the idea behind Protestantism that they're getting back to the basics of the faith that the "true" Christians practiced before the Catholic Church came around and corrupted everything? The fact that the early church fathers are almost unanimously in agreement with Catholic/Orthodox teaching and not reformed teaching seems to undermine that idea.

In fact you'd struggle to find ANY Christian that supported reformed theology, well, before the reformation. This is a strong indication that reformed theology is a novel creation and not a return to some form of Christianity practiced earlier. In fact there's good reason to believe if people like Justin Martyr could see reformed Christianity they'd denounce it as heresy.

>>711751

>>711751

Butthurt Calvinist is butthurt

>>711753

Reformed doctrines of free will would be seen as divine fatalism. A no no for them.

>>711730

Protestants eternally BTFO

>>711753

>In fact you'd struggle to find ANY Christian that supported reformed theology, well, before the reformation.

I don't know where you're getting that from. The bible itself is chock full of both national and personal election. John 6 and the classic letter to the romans are just a couple among many, in a series of books and letters spanning across millenia all affirming the same principle of unmerited grace.

If you're saying they, and Jesus Christ of all people, didn't believe in what they said, I beg and implore you to study His word more.

>All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

>43 When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!” 44 The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face

It's very clear language. Dead men don't do anything by themselves. You won't tell me the opposite next, will you?

>“How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

>5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

>9 “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.

It's not as if Nicodemus was a dumb person, he was one of the scribes, he too knows the dilemma here. Man will never be the one to initiate saving faith.

It is the Spirit that gives birth (You can't give birth to yourself), and the Spirit blows where it pleases.

Then there's some more about how God foreknows intimately (not merely a head knowledge) the believer whom He has elected

>For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers

>even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will

Really, it's easy to see. God in full control of salvation. We love Him because He first loved us.

>>711707

>people who self identified as “catholic”

No, they identified themselves as part of the universal church and not part of your anachronistic assumption of what Christianity was like in the very beginning. You can’t be seen as honest because whenever you see “πρεσβύτερος” in the Greek NT you say, “oh a ‘priest’, just like in our modern anachronistic interpretation of the Bible and church history”

>>711753

Uhh what about the ante-nicene fathers?

At least you notice the changes in doctrine that began not long after Theodosius made Paganism illegal? You do notice, right?

Can we get back to discussing the actual blog post, instead of flinging around any old partisan argument that comes to mind?

>>711870

Most of the so called Paganism is already there in the ante nicene fathers Ignatius literally uses Pagan terms to describe himself and the clergy where he is a "theoporos" which is not a name but an image bearer in Pagan processions

Tupois are also used in Pagan contexts, and that is how he describes the clergy.

Martyrdom Polycarp and Acts of Paul both demonstrate the cult of martyr. And catacomb engravings and epipaths found show prayers for the dead and even to them. If the Ante Nicene fathers saw these as heresy, they would had spoken up just as they did to Marcion, Ebionites and Gnostics

>>711864

This doesnt matter, as on the whole the Ante Nicenes or those before him, do the Pagan things already

http://www.academia.edu/10578584/_Ignatius_and_the_Apostolate._The_Witness_of_Ignatius_to_the_Emergence_of_Christian_Scripture._in_M._F._Wiles_and_E._J._Yarnold_eds._Studia_Patristica_XXXVI._Leuven_Peeters_Press_2001_226-48

>>711787

Suppose that for one second, that means by the time the end of the second century kicks in, people went astray and the church which to Hays supposedly have divine authority to teach is in fact abusing it! All the way until Calvin came along

>>711787

>Every single Christian was practicing the faith wrong from the first century all the way to Calvin

Uh, no. That's retarded.

>>711730

>>711732

How come no Calvinists have addressed this?

>>711870

>Uhh what about the ante-nicene fathers?

What about them? They're all far closer to Catholic/Orthodox teaching than they are Calvin. I can't really think of any of the apostolic fathers that strike me as supporting calvinistic theology

Chapter 17. The Christians are refused Polycarp's body

But when the adversary of the race of the righteous, the envious, malicious, and wicked one, perceived the impressive nature of his martyrdom, and [considered] the blameless life he had led from the beginning, and how he was now crowned with the wreath of immortality, having beyond dispute received his reward, he did his utmost that not the least memorial of him should be taken away by us, although many desired to do this, and to become possessors of his holy flesh. For this end he suggested it to Nicetes, the father of Herod and brother of Alce, to go and entreat the governor not to give up his body to be buried, lest, said he, forsaking Him that was crucified, they begin to worship this one. This he said at the suggestion and urgent persuasion of the Jews, who also watched us, as we sought to take him out of the fire, being ignorant of this, that it is neither possible for us ever to forsake Christ, who suffered for the salvation of such as shall be saved throughout the whole world (the blameless one for sinners ), nor to worship any other. For Him indeed, as being the Son of God, we adore; but the martyrs, as disciples and followers of the Lord, we worthily love on account of their extraordinary affection towards their own King and Master, of whom may we also be made companions and fellow disciples!

Chapter 18. The body of Polycarp is burned

The centurion then, seeing the strife excited by the Jews, placed the body in the midst of the fire, and consumed it. Accordingly, we afterwards took up his bones, as being more precious than the most exquisite jewels, and more purified than gold, and deposited them in a fitting place, whither, being gathered together, as opportunity is allowed us, with joy and rejoicing, the Lord shall grant us to celebrate the anniversary of his martyrdom, both in memory of those who have already finished their course, and for the exercising and preparation of those yet to walk in their steps.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0102.htm

>>711961

At what point do Calvinists just give up and come clean and admit that their theology was created in the 16th century and didn't exist before then?

>>711962

They have to at some point. Why do you think sola scriptura to them means the Fathers are only accepted insofar as they conform to Reformed theology?

SOLA👏SCRIPTURA👏IS👏BIBLE👏FAN👏THEORY

>>711978

Please address the original blog post instead of shitposting.

>>711980

The original blog is foiled for two simple reasons

1)Divine authority to teach amounts to nothing if everyone for the past thousand or so years oppose Reformed theology

2)His own Protestant side literally have contradictory views on matters of faith. For instance many Prots believe in libertarian free will, Hays doesnt….etc etc

3)Many Protestant scholars may not take Newman's conclusions but portray the Fathers as not some proto protestant theologians, so this mention makes no difference if Catholics can demonstrate how the views of Protestant scholars match them or at least match them more.

4)Hays claim to obey authority, particularly religious ones is only selective. Proven by the large contradiction between him and the Fathers

>>711948

>>711952

I've shown you what the Bible and Christ Himself taught. Never did I mention Calvin or imply that the christian believers went wayside immediately after the apostles.

Although even Paul had to admonish the galatian church during his time, so what then after a couple centuries, when so many were arians? Athanasius 'Contra Mundum'.

>>711962

>>711966

>>712014

Consensus does not make something right, otherwise one could argue the arians were during their time, they certainly were the majority. We know that only the divine Scriptures inspired by God are the reliable rule of faith. If they are not, then every novel teaching under the sun is up for grabs.

It's a matter of following the teaching of the apostles, the prophets and Christ Himself. They all speak of election, the totality and complete sufficiency of grace and the sovereignty of God.

>>712129

For your position to be consistent, everything must go wayside right after the Apostles starting from 1Clement. This is proven by the numerous patristic statements I provided ITT that opposes your theological view. Also, my point doesnt rely on having zero schism but simply the continuity of doctrinal beliefs in the face of these schisms or heresies.

Galatians also opposes your side, because it considers Baptism by water in context of justification by faith in chapter 3. That leaves your option as unbiblical.

>>712129

Your use of the Arians fails. Because earlier fathers oppose their tendencies. In fact what you just did is a strawman of my use of Patristic authority because I never referred to the consensus in the present time. Only to the early Christians demonstrating the antiquity of that which is against you or Steve Hays

Even better for me, this simply proves what I critiqued of Hays!

>>712133

>Paul using his apostolic authority to correct people who had misinterpreted his earlier letters proves that apostolics are wrong and calvinists are right

You're missing the point i was making, that some churches readily embraced false doctrine very early. Granted, they did not necessarily always have this wealth of NT literature available as we do at the snap of a finger.

>had misinterpreted his earlier letters

They didn't misinterpret, they had been led astray by what were most likely judaizers

<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— 7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.

>>712135

>For your position to be consistent, everything must go wayside right after the Apostles starting from 1Clement.

I disagree.

>This is proven by the numerous patristic statements I provided ITT that opposes your theological view.

The patristic writers are capable of being wrong, their writings are not Scripture.

Jesus Christ once was asked if it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife, and He answered to look at what Moses taught. Likewise I will look at what the scriptures teach. If any man does not do the same but goes against them, that is on them.

>Galatians also opposes your side, because it considers Baptism by water in context of justification by faith in chapter 3.

The context does not justify this view. The NT speaks of many types of baptism, not just the one we see and do in response to the faith God has given.

<I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ 34 And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.”

On the contrary, Galatians upholds the doctrine of salvation by faith alone, through complete and sufficient grace alone coming from God alone, not through anything man does. Paul himself earlier in Galatians 1:16-17 never mentions having been saved through baptism, but by God revealing Christ to him. There are many more instances to quote of faith alone through grace, not by any works, being the saving power of God, such as the thief on the cross.

>>712136

>Your use of the Arians fails. Because earlier fathers oppose their tendencies.

Why not extend this all the way to the Scriptures in that case? Of course the earlier saints rejected arianism. The point here was that the majority of the church had been caught up in a false doctrine, and there was only a handful of people rejecting that false teaching. Likewise today, there are a minority of christians rejecting false teaching. Roman Catholics on the other hand often teach that the majority of the church body is the one to be followed. Which one is it? That rule does not apply to the Arian controversy, and is disproven by it.

>In fact what you just did is a strawman of my use of Patristic authority because I never referred to the consensus in the present time. Only to the early Christians demonstrating the antiquity of that which is against you or Steve Hays

I was speaking of consensus in past times and making a comparison to the present, there's nothing wrong with doing so. It is a fact of life that many of the early church saints are in contradiction to one another on any myriad of topics, but this particular case stands out.

Hence, the rule of faith has always been only scripture and all of scripture. The church saints can not be used as a bludgeon against any particular doctrine unless they themselves, in their views are shown to be correct through Scripture. All this is self-evident.

I don't know with what eyes you're viewing the Scriptures if you do not see the earliest of christians affirming the election of the saved and the doctrines of grace.

>>712162

The earliest Christians arent Protocalvinists so get over it unless you can provide accurate proof as I had for my point. The fact that you appeal to the fathers as fallible simply proves my point. To avoid them having any significant role as guides to Scripture or doctrinal issues, they are only accepted if they agree with Reformed view.

Also, Galatians' Baptism IS water Baptism and worse still, the context proves you wrong as I will show

Galatians 3:27 on Baptism

The context of this verse is one within the grand argument of Paul explaining how believers are to be justified by faith and not of the Law. He links believers(also his audience as the intended reader) to the blessings of Abraham and God’s promise to him where the gentiles shall participate in through faith in Jesus Christ. The Law, meant to function as a schoolmaster or pedagogue who disciplines the Israelites before the advent of Christ. These are connected to our main verse mentioning Baptism where we put on Christ, indicated by the use of “for” which serves as the connector.

This connection would also entail something about Baptism, that it is connected to the process of justification by faith, in this case being an explanation of why believers are called “Sons of God” in the preceding v.26. The motif here echoes the use of Baptism in other areas of the Pauline corpus, notably Romans 6:3 and Colossians 2:12 in which Baptism is used in conjunction with the benefits of union with Christ. It would also be part of one being grafted into Christ formally under this implication.

OSAS believers, Baptists and Evangelicals may simply push the view of the so called Baptism of the Spirit to avoid the implications of this. While conceding for the sake of showing Anderson’s and typical OSAS believers inconsistency would aid this refutation, an argument for why Galatians refer to water Baptism would be given, to further demonstrate the flaws in their eisegesis. For one, the updated form of Strong’s concordance and lexicon, the Bauer Lexicon opposes this in outlining the Scriptural usages of Baptism. One of the definitions for Baptism it gives is the “Christian sacrament of initiation after Jesus’ death”.

Galatians 3:1-5

Anderson’s eisegesis here proves deficient. In his sermon on Galatians 3, his overall view can be expressed as: the Apostles preached the Gospel to the Galatians and ministered to them, they didnt follow and not Saved at all, they return to the Law.

By analysing these verses deeper, we will start to see how Anderson’s understanding of them doesnt conform to their flow.

The opening verse tells us the reason for the Galatians’ foolishness. Given the use of “bewitched”, it may be possible that their succumbing to the Judaizers could be due to an “evil spiritual influence”. Bauer’s Lexicon defines the Greek for bewitched(βασκαίνω) as to “exert an evil influence through the eye”. Usage here is metaphorical, no doubt referring to the influence of the Judaizing group. Yet this is foolishness as the Gospel was preached to them. The visual reference to Christ used here may indicate that Paul utilizes the rhetorical technique of ekphrasis which focuses on vivid imagery. This poses a problem for Anderson and those that are iconoclastic, as Paul is essentially admitting to preaching the Gospel in a manner that uses “word pictures” which create mental images. Given the main topic at hand, further explorations on this issue will be for a later time.

Next, Paul asks the question of how the Galatians received the Spirit. This unfortunately for Anderson blows his case out of the water, as such indicates that Paul presuppose that the Galatians actually received the Holy Spirit. Oddly for Anderson, he doesnt mention anything about the Spirit in v2, possibly due to this. Still, it must be clarified that this reception of the Spirit is through faith, or in this case, believing the Gospel preached and given what is stated in v27, Baptism as part of this.

Moving to v3, we see more confirmations that advice against taking the OSAS viewpoint. The phrase “having begun” is an aorist participle  ἐναρξάμενοι(enarxamenoi) which its only other reference is Philippians 1:6 which refers to the very work God will do in the believer. Bauer’s lexicon notes that in both contexts, what is referred to here is the beginning of the Christian’s life. The two verses even parallel each other, with Galatians being more ironic given its pastoral situation. This detail is left out of Anderson’s own sermon on this chapter and it is quite obvious why, once this is considered, it would entail the Galatians as actually receiving a beginning from God who works in them and having received the Spirit. These are defeaters to his interpretation that the Galatians were never Saved in the first place.

On v4, the “suffering” could invoke the sense that the Galatians went through some persecution, perhaps even due to the incursions of the Judaizers. In Anderson’s sermon, nothing of this is implied. In this verse, the particle γέ is used, as shown in the Greek render below:

τοσαῦτα ἐπάθετε εἰκῇ; εἴ γε καὶ εἰκῇ

This particle is meant to place focus on a single idea or place according to the Bauer lexicon. Thus this would suggest the Galatian’s experiences of “sufferings” to be the idea in focus. With v5 focusing on miracles and the ministering of the Spirit and the preceding v3 referring to the work of the Spirit in the Galatians, it is most likely that they also experienced the Spirit that aid them in these sufferings. Should they turn away now, all these would had be in vain. The tone of these experiences being in vain is one that may express a hope that they will reject the Judaizers in light of these experiences.

This again, nullifies the OSAS position, as the way Paul addresses the situation is one where he sees the Galatians in a real danger of making all their experiences of being Saved as being in vain. The danger of this situation with the Judaizers expressed in Galatians 2:4:

4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage

Had OSAS be what Paul had in mind, this and all we covered wouldnt be what we find when analysing the verses and letting them speak for themselves. Yet when we do, a contradictory picture of the OSAS eisegesis emerges. The context shows Paul persuading the Galatians through appeal to their spiritual experiences. Even if a baptism of the spirit is presupposed, we are still dealing with people whom by Anderson’s own beliefs would had been Saved but yet he preaches otherwise. We are left only with an inerrant Scripture contradicting itself. Yet when we look at the verses in their own proper order and context, we see a consistent Paul against the notion of OSAS

>>712162

Your attempt to destroy patristic authority is an utter failute here, as it literally ignores the fact that those saints who go up against the majority are able to marshall the earlier fathers to their cause. You cannot. Proven by the mere fact you make excuses to castrate them of any significant voice. As you excuse your view, the early fathers contradict themselves.

Except when they unanimously affirm Sacramental realism, free choice, Scripture, the importance of unity, Final Judgement according to works, deification, unity importance, reliability of past figures, succession and the high authority of the clergy.

Contradiction is merely a castration of patristic authority

>>712165

That's all very nice, but it is not the topic of the OP.

>>712164

>The earliest Christians arent Protocalvinists so get over it unless you can provide accurate proof as I had for my point.

And I'm not saying they are protocalvinists, I'm saying they hold to the truth of election of believers as they do to the doctrines of grace. You can see it for yourself, there's what Jesus says,

>But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

>No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.

and then there's what the apostles say,

<We love because he first loved us.

>To avoid them having any significant role as guides to Scripture or doctrinal issues, they are only accepted if they agree with Reformed view.

What else am I supposed to do? Hail them as right in all things when they contradict each other as well? Look, they didn't write Scripture, they aren't the rule of faith, and they never will be. I will affirm them when they're right according to the Scriptures, and I will disengage of them when not. This is wholesome and right according to Scripture.

>>712165

>>712167

>Anderson

>OSAS

>OSAS believers, Baptists and Evangelicals may simply push the view of the so called Baptism of the Spirit to avoid the implications of this.

Look, you're not engaging me, I'm not one of the regulars on this board, and I don't believe in what Anderson teaches. I adhere to the perseverance of the saints, not OSAS. You can't wink at God and say you're saved if all your fruits show that to evidently be false. That's an aside though.

If you wish to use Galatians as prooftext outside its context, trying to prove that baptism saves, then you're in hot water because you contradict the rest of Scripture.

God is Holy, and our sin is sin. There is nothing that man can do to bridge this gap, nor do they naturally want to. Jesus died once for all - the grace of God is what saves.

Ephesians 2 puts it succinctly, saving faith through grace is a GIFT, you don't do anything to receive a gift.

>Your attempt to destroy patristic authority is an utter failute here, as it literally ignores the fact that those saints who go up against the majority are able to marshall the earlier fathers to their cause. You cannot.

They never had any authority, only Scripture has it. The ones who are in the right in any matter of doctrine are merely repeating what Scripture says.

>Proven by the mere fact you make excuses to castrate them of any significant voice. As you excuse your view, the early fathers contradict themselves.

>Except when they unanimously affirm Sacramental realism, free choice, Scripture, the importance of unity, Final Judgement according to works, deification, unity importance, reliability of past figures, succession and the high authority of the clergy.

>Contradiction is merely a castration of patristic authority

I don't have to fight with you about these things. The scriptures are clear that they are the only rule of faith. Later people who taught a mixed bag of truths and falsehoods do not match up to them, even if insight and teaching can be gleamed on them where they are right (repeating the scriptures). This is all elementary.

>>712177

Sorry, i kind of derailed it. Let's see if we can get back on rail?

So quoting the first reply made

>Why is the Bible the supreme authority? The Bible is not an authority itself, it derives its authority from both:

>1. It's authors who were inspired and followers of Christ

>2. The process of developing an official canon which was created and approved by the Church

This is wrong, you can not put the creation ahead of the Creator. Scripture is God-breathed, it would not be here if it were not for God. So God is the ultimate author of Scripture.

Do people see the problem? You can't have another authority following an Ultimate authority, God. That would mean you override God's authority.

Why is God the ultimate authority? Because He is God, simply put.

>>712180

And…nothing of what I stated is refuted in anyway. Anderson's OSAS and your Preseverence of saints have one agreement, those who are Saved CANNOT fall away. The Greek of Galatians as I shown indicate one who is Saved who is in the process of going to the Law and a point where Christ HAVE NO EFFECT ON THEM.

On Baptism, you ignore the Greek and the parallels I mention where the context is clearly water Baptism

>>712182

>And…nothing of what I stated is refuted in anyway. Anderson's OSAS and your Preseverence of saints have one agreement, those who are Saved CANNOT fall away. The Greek of Galatians as I shown indicate one who is Saved who is in the process of going to the Law and a point where Christ HAVE NO EFFECT ON THEM.

One who has true faith can not fall away because of what Jesus said. Whoever is given to Him by God will be kept by Him. There are no qualifiers, Jesus does what He said He will. I dare not make Him a liar.

>On Baptism, you ignore the Greek and the parallels I mention where the context is clearly water Baptism

water baptism can not save, if it did then that would contradict the rest of the Scriptures that say we do nothing to earn salvation. Hence by logical deduction this verse does not speak of water baptism.

Getting back on topic again,

>>711684

<Even if you grant that you still have the problem that it was the Catholic church which decided which scripture was the word of God and what wasn't. There's no way around that. Protestants simply like to pretend the canon formed in a vacuum but it was Catholic Bishops guided by the Holy Spirit who decided on it. That's a big problem for you.

Underlined claim is incapable of being true, as there is God's canon which He wrote, and the canon we see. Any one entity outside God never decides what God has done or has not done, it is God who decides it. It is as with Gods obvious existence, the thought of the contrary is an impossibility. So also, as with men knowing God's existence by default, it is with the Scriptures, they are as obviously Scripture as Gods existence is obvious.

>>712185

>Underlined claim is incapable of being true, as there is God's canon which He wrote, and the canon we see. Any one entity outside God never decides what God has done or has not done, it is God who decides it. It is as with Gods obvious existence, the thought of the contrary is an impossibility. So also, as with men knowing God's existence by default, it is with the Scriptures, they are as obviously Scripture as Gods existence is obvious.

So if we gave a new Christian who is unfamiliar with the Bible a collection of canonical scripture and apocrypha they'll be able to select the exact canon? I don't think so buddy. If God did select the canon he did it through the Catholic church which legitimizes it so you're still stuck in a rut here. See >>711730 and >>711732

>>712190

>So if we gave a new Christian who is unfamiliar with the Bible a collection of canonical scripture and apocrypha they'll be able to select the exact canon? I don't think so buddy.

I would say that's demeaning to the Scriptures.

>These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

>“Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.” (Matthew 13:11)

election here again

All knowledge comes from God, not just the mundane knowledge but spiritual things also, as all things exist reliant on Him.

Not only that, it's evident through moral, spiritual, and historical error that the apocrypha are not Scripture. Maccabees even outright states there were no prophets during the time, so it's stuck in self-contradiction if you hold it as Scripture. Scripture is God-breathed, and God can not be wrong, so the apocrypha are not Scripture.

>If God did select the canon he did it through the Catholic church which legitimizes it so you're still stuck in a rut here.

One, you're assuming that that catholic church is the same as today. Where are your proofs for that? The Scriptures disagree with what the Roman Catholic church teach, let alone mention dogma such as the assumption of Mary, for one.

Second, you're assuming that recognition of the canon of scripture gives the one recognizing it authority to "legitimize it". That can't be the case, as again, if that is the case, then God is not the ultimate authority. The church would be supplanting His authority.

The canon is reliant on God, and the recognition of the canon is likewise reliant on God. So then, all authority goes to God, because without God there is no knowledge of anything, whether spiritual or earthly.

>“For the Lord gives wisdom; from His mouth come knowledge and understanding; He stores up sound wisdom for the upright …” (Proverbs 2:6)

Oddly enough only Calvin knew what the canon is. As the canons of early Christianity shows!

>>712202

> That can't be the case, as again, if that is the case, then God is not the ultimate authority

God is the ultimate authority and his authority flows through the Catholic church alone. That's why he gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

>>712206

>Oddly enough only Calvin knew what the canon is. As the canons of early Christianity shows!

I don't know what you're getting at with Calvin, but early christians likewise affirmed the protestant canon, Athanasius being one among them who wrote strong words against the apocrypha.

>>712209

>his authority flows through the Catholic church alone. That's why he gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

Peter affirmed God, and insofar as he affirmed God, he had authority as an apostle. The Roman Catholic church, which does not teach Scripture, the authority of God, but its own dogmas outside of Scripture. Therefore, the Roman Catholic church has no authority.

You have to note that there is no mention of any of the authority you claim there to be for the Roman catholic church in the passage.

>>712218

> the authority of God, but teaches its own dogmas outside of Scripture. Therefore, the Roman Catholic church has no authority.

edit

>>712218

This is false. Even John Meade makes it clear that some deuterocanon are treated as Scripture. Like Wisdom of Solomon.

Irenaeus considered Baruch part of Jeremaiah alongside Susanah as part of Daniel

Clement of Rome cites from Wisdom in the same manner he cites OT texts

>>712228

So here are 'apocrypha' accepted by Athanasius as Scripture:

Greek Ezra

Tobit

Baruch

Letter of Jeremiah

Wisdom of Solomon

Sirach

Possible inclusion:

Susannah

Judith