# my formal challenge does what I beileve stand the test of time?



## ModernPuritan? (Aug 30, 2008)

Show me, where your believes- from election, to singing solos or women preachers, sola fide, kosher laws pretty much whatever you want. Im hoping that it would of more consequence than "church should have green carpet" though you could do that if you really want to.. lets see how historical your believe really is- or is it brand spanking new, fresh of the press? basically, can you provide proof that your interpretation was beileved by the church- not fringe groups like arians, marconites, etc.

the rules-
1) absolutely no scripture references. all quotes must come from a clearly named commentator, historian, or "church father" (Scripture, shall be considered the 66 book canon as referred to by most protestants/Christians today) no scripture, is because there ae likely atleast 2 interpretations of any passage. and we are dealing with historicity of interpretations

2) the particular belief: the definition/ understanding of the concept must remain the same in each era- if it doesn't, you must note that its definition, or what have you changed

3) it must stay away from these particulars- Jesus is the way to heaven, Jesus is God, Jesus is born of a virgin, Jesus Died and rose again. The trinity.

4) the use of the same author for 2 different periods is not allowed.

The time periods

a) 0 A.D to 400 A.D
b) 401 AD- 800 A.D
c) 801 AD- 1200 A.D
d) 1201 AD- 1600 A.D
e) 1600 A,D - present

I guess here are some more topics to consider in no particular order

sola fide
pope
Amil
Premil
sprinkle
immersion
paedo
creedo


----------



## toddpedlar (Aug 30, 2008)

I'm confused as to what you're after here...What exactly do you expect people to do with this?


----------



## Zenas (Aug 30, 2008)

You want proof for beliefs based solely on Scripture but no one can use Scripture to prove them?

Sounds like an exercise in both futility and absurdity my friend.


----------



## toddpedlar (Aug 30, 2008)

Zenas said:


> You want proof for beliefs based solely on Scripture but no one can use Scripture to prove them?
> 
> Sounds like an exercise in both futility and absurdity my friend.



I'm pretty sure he's not asking for proofs of particular doctrines, but for historical support for them. I *think* what he's asking for, then, is for people to dig up quotations for presently-held beliefs from people throughout church history, and not for us to try to defend them from Scripture. I couldn't quite be certain I am getting at what he wants from his post, though, which is why I asked for clarification.


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Aug 30, 2008)

yes- exactly, historical support, historical backing...

for instance- the health and wealthers, the pentecostals- these things tend to lack historical support. yet are based on someones interpretation of scripture...

so yes, historical backing


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Aug 30, 2008)

Jeff:

Historical interpretation is based upon how individuals understood Scripture. To restrict such a discussion by "forbidding" the use of Scripture reference just doesn't seem proper.

Or, maybe I'm just not following what you want.

Can you give an example?


----------



## toddpedlar (Aug 30, 2008)

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> Jeff:
> 
> Historical interpretation is based upon how individuals understood Scripture. To restrict such a discussion by "forbidding" the use of Scripture reference just doesn't seem proper.
> 
> ...



yes, an example would be helpful. I'm still not clear on why you're asking people to do this - in addition to the example, I'd like to know what the "big picture" is - are there particular reformed doctrines that you're trying to check out (as to whether they have historical support or not) or something like that? You've asked a very vague kind of question.


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Aug 30, 2008)

*an example only*

an example would be lets say birth control and condoms. (yes, the existed for thousands of years)

the Talmud, forbids the use of condoms.
the catholic church has consistely as far back as i can trace, condemned the use of condoms
the reformers, held the same

and suddenly- the 18/1900s come along and whoa, we can use condoms now. some how, the past 2000 years of scholar ship, research, and interpretation have missed the fact that condoms and BC are acceptable.....

(lets not discuss this particular concept further... this would be an example)

the next step would be to trace it like this

your interpretation: Condoms should be acceptable for Christans.. now what I want is this

find someone from 1-500 AD- who was a Christian, and beileved condoms are acceptable

do the same thing for 500-1000, 1000-1500, and 1500-2000

a consistent strain through history of like minded interpretations as your original one in this example : Condoms are acceptable.


----------



## Davidius (Aug 30, 2008)

Perhaps I'm the thick one, but I don't think his question is at all vague or odd. He's simply asking us to exhibit the historicity of our beliefs. If you believe X, since Paul admonished us to uphold the faith once delivered to the saints, show that your idea has been believed in Church history before, during, and after 1517, 1648, 1901, and 2008 (well, obviously not _after_ 2008).


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Aug 30, 2008)

as far as reformed doctrines- TULIP

as far as protestant doctrines in particular- Sola Fide.

I guess this is in response to my papist friend who asserted that protestants have no historical verification for their interpretations until the reformation. I beileve we do- we should shouldnt we?? Surely someone back then beileved in SOla fide and eternal security?


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Aug 30, 2008)

Davidius said:


> Perhaps I'm the thick one, but I don't think his question is at all vague or odd. He's simply asking us to exhibit the historicity of our beliefs. If you believe X, and if Paul admonished us to uphold the faith once delivered to the saints, show that your idea has been believed in Church history before 1517, 1648, 1901, or 2008.





    

exactly- some one can interpret what i wrote -- if in doubt what im after use the above quote from Davidius


----------



## Davidius (Aug 30, 2008)

ModernPuritan? said:


> as far as reformed doctrines- TULIP
> 
> as far as protestant doctrines in particular- Sola Fide.
> 
> I guess this is in response to my papist friend who asserted that protestants have no historical verification for their interpretations until the reformation. I beileve we do- we should shouldnt we?? Surely someone back then beileved in SOla fide and eternal security?



Based on our premise of _sola scriptura_, it doesn't technically matter if anyone in the last 2000 years has agreed with us. If we can show that our view is scriptural, it doesn't matter what Irenaeus, Polycarp, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, or for that matter Luther, Calvin, and Owen thought.


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Aug 30, 2008)

but how do we know we are right then, with what authority can we really claim to be right.

How do we know we arent ourselves deceived? since it technically doesnt matter?

this is where it kind of intersects with my other topic- Who is right

but if we all do our best to faithfully interpret scripure yet arrive at differnt conclusion?


----------



## Davidius (Aug 31, 2008)

ModernPuritan? said:


> but how do we know we are right then, with what authority can we really claim to be right.
> 
> How do we know we arent ourselves deceived? since it technically doesnt matter?
> 
> ...



I don't know. It's a good question, one which I haven't seen answered without at least a small amount of question begging. I don't have an answer.


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Aug 31, 2008)

and then one more question... forget any other doctrines

Sola Fide,
Sola SCripture.


----------



## christianyouth (Aug 31, 2008)

Since it's your thread, can we do the opposite? Instead of building a positive case, showing that "This writer taught Sola Fide", could we show where a specific writer spoke out against Sola Fide? Thinking of Polycarp here.


----------



## Davidius (Aug 31, 2008)

ModernPuritan? said:


> and then one more question... forget any other doctrines
> 
> Sola Fide,
> Sola SCripture.



http://www.puritanboard.com/f35/justification-faith-patristic-doctrine-20449/


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Aug 31, 2008)

*course there is then this article*



> Salvation from the Perspective
> 
> of the Early Church Fathers
> 
> ...



I thought it was a good read... course, you provided more with that link, so ill consider it even


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 31, 2008)

Okay, say I believe in baptismal regeneration, the primacy of one bishop over all others, and chiliasm....the early church has my back on all of these! 


Error is as ancient as the truth and without using Scripture, I am not sure what your exercise accomplishes.


----------



## sotzo (Aug 31, 2008)

Jeff:

I think I'm putting 2 and 2 together here based on your OP here and your OP on "how do we know who is right". I think what you are dealing with is a Roman Catholic friend who is basically saying all we Protestants have are our Bibles....and between us we have different interpretations. Whereas, in the RC church, they have the Bible, but also the papacy starting with Peter which infallibly give the true interpretation. Therefore, the RC can be sure he has the correct interpretation whereas the Protestant is awash in his own subjectivity versus the subjectivity of opposing Protestant views. In the absence of an arbiter (such as the pope or an infallible church council) truth from the Scriptures is elusive.

Now we could go all day about tracing doctrine through history...for the doctrine of justification check out James Buchanan's book "The Doctrine of Justification" The Doctrine of Justification - By: James Buchanan - Christianbook.com will find a very sufficient historical tracing there for that doctrine.

But all this really misses the point which is that:

1. Confessionally-minded Protestants don't believe in me, Jesus and my Bible...we all still do interpretation within the life of the church, both past and present. We check our private interpretations against the church's at-large. In fact, officers are accountable to let someone in authority know when they are at odds with a major doctrine or the confession to which they have subscribed. So, your RC friend needs to understand that historic Protestantism itself doesn't relegate us all to islands...that would be *solo* Sciptura rather than *sola* Scriptura.

2. An alleged infallible interpretation of an infallible text moves the pawn back one space on the board. Whether I read the infallible text or hear an infallible pope, *I am still me* with all me presuppositions and all my interpretive skill(or lack thereof). I don't / can't automatically have a matrix-like experience where what the infallible source says is 100% channelled to my consciousness so I no longer need to interpret. Ask your friend why the RC church needs canon law and canon lawyers to interpret the church's teaching if the pope clears up matters of faith with his promulgations. The fact is we are all interpreters and being under the authority of an infallible pope to interpret an infallible text doesn't and can't obviate the need for individuals to interpret. 

3. Finally, read the canons of the Council of Trent, then read Vatican II and see for yourself whether the RC church can live up to the same "consistent-through-the-ages" challenge that he is asking you regarding Protestantism...especially in regard to who and what the true church consists of.


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Aug 31, 2008)

the last 2 non PB board folk i talked to, I came right out and said "Im dealing with a papist on the historicity of our interpretation vs theirs. can you recommend books?" He politely told my to bugger off. 

the next guy, gave me books ive already read- and the books, are so far different from what the official catechism, Nihil Obistats and such teach, that it wasnt funny. im no expert, but i can sniff a book thats written by a high strung, emotionally driven writer

so i figured, if i could hold out on mentioning "papist" that I would get, Honest, historical proof that our interpretation was atleast present at the same time theirs was.


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Aug 31, 2008)

I will check out that book, But id still like to trace things through history as that (before the papist) was a little project of mine anyway.


----------



## toddpedlar (Aug 31, 2008)

ModernPuritan? said:


> the last 2 non PB board folk i talked to, I came right out and said "Im dealing with a papist on the historicity of our interpretation vs theirs. can you recommend books?" He politely told my to bugger off.
> 
> the next guy, gave me books ive already read- and the books, are so far different from what the official catechism, Nihil Obistats and such teach, that it wasnt funny. im no expert, but i can sniff a book thats written by a high strung, emotionally driven writer
> 
> so i figured, if i could hold out on mentioning "papist" that I would get, Honest, historical proof that our interpretation was atleast present at the same time theirs was.



Ancient-ness does not give priority to one doctrinal formulation versus another. Doctrine develops, and grows out of thoughtful consideration of the Scriptures. The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is one such example - Covenant theology is another. By playing the "my doctrine is older than yours" game, I fear you're playing into the hands of those you're arguing with.


----------



## TimV (Aug 31, 2008)

> I fear you're playing into the hands of those you're arguing with.



That's also my take. Continuity is naturally something that can't be ignored, since there have been millions of believers who have lived who are smarter than us. But at the same time, the Kingdoms is like a tiny seed, which sprouts into a little plant, and then slowly grows bigger and more complex, and more detailed, and more beautiful, and more useful to the world.


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Aug 31, 2008)

well then, Ill stop playing the game with the papist- thats fine and easy enough.

but Ive always been big into history- which is why- even before i meet the papist- i was reading church fathers, trying to see what they beileved, etc,,,, what we had in common with them beyond virgin birth, trinity, etc.

so, if yall know of well written books dealing with church history, beileves during that time (0-5/600) please pass them along.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Aug 31, 2008)

*Zwingli's Answer to the Papal Historians of his day...*



ModernPuritan? said:


> well then, Ill stop playing the game with the papist- thats fine and easy enough.
> 
> but Ive always been big into history- which is why- even before i meet the papist- i was reading church fathers, trying to see what they beileved, etc,,,, what we had in common with them beyond virgin birth, trinity, etc.
> 
> so, if yall know of well written books dealing with church history, beileves during that time (0-5/600) please pass them along.




"To know the limbs and leaps of history is hardly worth a cent...the only thing which counts is that you become more certain of your God as you contemplate the past, and that you then show more courage in the face of present needs." -- Ulrich Zwingli


----------



## Ravens (Aug 31, 2008)

Mr. Rod,

It might also be an interesting exercise to pick certain Roman Catholic or Orthodox movements/doctrines (papal infallibility when speaking _ex cathedra_, transubstantiation, the immaculate conception, the assumption, relics, toll-booths, purgatory, indulgences, etc.) and read them in the light of the earliest documents also.

It always seems as if their is a double-standard in these discussions. It's been awhile since I've read the earliest patristic fathers, but I don't think that any of those doctrines will be found in Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, or Justin. Even the comments about the Eucharist are never phrased, to my knowledge, in an Aristotelian understanding of transubstantiation, replete with accidents and substances. 

So I would like to know the rule or principle by which we can determine that a doctrine that first appears clearly in, say, the 16th century is ruled out by it's novelty, whereas a doctrine that first appears, say, in the 4th or 5th centuries is acceptable. Or to put it another way, the thrust and force of anti-Protestant polemics seems to assume an unbroken continuity with antiquity. That is, their doctrines seem to have older pedigree (outside of Scripture) than our's. The emotional pull resides in the unbroken chain of truth.

Yet an examination of their own doctrinal system, at least as I am aware of it, will show various doctrines popping up as the centuries roll on. Perhaps some are rooted in the 4th and 5th, some in the 8th or 9th, some in the 13th, etc. Even the fact that a Council of Nicea was _necessary_ seems to indicate the necessity of the church's growth in understanding and doctrinal formulation. 

Why were there numerous church councils on Christology and numerous debates over the nature of the relation between the human and Divine wills? In all of these subjects, whether we deal with the Trinity, with Christology, or with other things, there were debates and polemics. It seems as if the church grappled with issues and confessed a position for the first time, rather than appealing to prior official confessions. That's why we don't find the Athanasian creed in the _Dialogue with Trypho_, or the Symbol of Chalcedon in Ignatius.

So if doctrinal progress, debate, and formulation can be accepted in theory and practice, why wouldn't we expect it to continue on? Somehow a clear understanding of justification by faith appearing in the 16th century is a travesty of novelty, whereas a clearer understanding (in their view) of transubstantiation appearing roughly three hundred years prior to that is acceptable and non-novel?

I'm not saying that I've thought through these issues exhaustively, and no knee-jerk, uneducated Protestant response is going to satisfy your questions. Indeed, often, I find that it would work the other way a couple years from now, as you realize that you may have bought into a bait-and-switch! I would just question the assumptions on which the discussion hinges, and ask yourself whether or not you can find a full-orbed Orthodox or Catholic theology in the first two hundred years of Christian literature.

If not, then does that pose a problem for Catholic or Orthodox dogma? If it doesn't pose a problem for them, then why does it pose a problem for Protestantism?

Does that make sense?


----------



## Ravens (Aug 31, 2008)

Also, the onus of interpretation is _always_ going to reside squarely and solely on you. Why? If you were to leave a Reformed church (or get saved into "mere Christianity" and have to choose between a Protestant church, the Roman Catholic church, or an Orthodox church) you would still need to interpret and exegete in order to make your choice.

Except now you would be exegeting and interpreting _history_ and incredibly complicated debates over the bishop of Rome, whether he has any form of primacy, whether his primacy (if any) is merely one of honor, or one of a judicial nature. Who was right in 1054? Did the correct line of succession end up being validated at Avignon? Those are the questions I would deal with.

I've wrestled with this myself. If you chose to leave Protestantism today, would you join a Catholic or an Orthodox church? Once you decide, ask yourself, "Why?" The answer to "why" will be your own personal judgment, based on your own personal interpretation of history, canon law, patriarchates, etc. 

I might be mistaken, but I would rather have the task of interpreting inspired words, clauses, and sentences, than historical events, councils, canons, etc. Either way, you're going to have to interpret.


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Aug 31, 2008)

*the Purgatorian Idea*

Augustine "There is an ecclesiastical discipline, as the faithful know, when the names of the martyrs are read aloud in that place at the altar of God, where prayer is not offered for them. Prayer, however, is offered for other dead who are remembered. It is wrong to pray for a martyr, to whose prayers we ought ourselves be commended" (Sermons 159:1 [A.D. 411]).

"But by the prayers of the holy Church, and by the salvific sacrifice, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided, that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. The whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the sacrifice itself; and the sacrifice is offered also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, then, works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it possible for these things to be useful to them after death" (ibid., 172:2).

"Temporal punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by some after death, by some both here and hereafter, but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But not all who suffer temporal punishments after death will come to eternal punishments, which are to follow after that judgment" (The City of God 21:13 [A.D. 419]).

"That there should be some fire even after this life is not incredible, and it can be inquired into and either be discovered or left hidden whether some of the faithful may be saved, some more slowly and some more quickly in the greater or lesser degree in which they loved the good things that perish, through a certain purgatorial fire" (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Charity 18:69 [A.D. 421]).

"The time which interposes between the death of a man and the final resurrection holds souls in hidden retreats, accordingly as each is deserving of rest or of hardship, in view of what it merited when it was living in the flesh. Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator [Mass] is offered for them, or when alms are given in the Church. But these things are of profit to those who, when they were alive, merited that they might afterward be able to be helped by these things. There is a certain manner of living, neither so good that there is no need of these helps after death, nor yet so wicked that these helps are of no avail after death" (ibid., 29:109).

Tertullian "We offer sacrifices for the dead on their birthday anniversaries [the date of death—birth into eternal life]" (The Crown 3:3 [A.D. 211]).

"A woman, after the death of her husband . . . prays for his soul and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection. And each year, on the anniversary of his death, she offers the sacrifice" (Monogamy 10:1–2 [A.D. 216]). 

---------

also of interest- the Orthodox Jews have the same similar concept of purgatory for the dead righteous- If i remember correctly this is Talmudic.Dead sea scroll stuff and could easily pre date the first advent if not during the same period as Christs ministry on earth. so this beilef goes very very far back.
-------------
also in Maccabes i think?


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Aug 31, 2008)

*Transubstantion/Non bloddy sacrifice*

non bloody sacrifice part

The Didache
"Assemble on the Lord's day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23–24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, 'Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations' [Mal. 1:11, 14]" (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).

Clement

"Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its sacrifices. Blessed are those presbyters who have already finished their course, and who have obtained a fruitful and perfect release" (Letter to the Corinthians 44:4–5 [A.D. 80]).

Ignatius of Antioch

"Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice—even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God" (Letter to the Philadelphians 4 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr
"God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [minor prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: 'I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord, and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering, for my name is great among the Gentiles . . . [Mal. 1:10–11]. He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us [Christians] who in every place offer sacrifices to him, that is, the bread of the Eucharist and also the cup of the Eucharist" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 41 [A.D. 155]).

Irenaeus
"He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, 'This is my body.' The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood. He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve [minor] prophets, had signified beforehand: 'You do not do my will, says the Lord Almighty, and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is my name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Almighty' [Mal. 1:10–11]. By these words he makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to him, and indeed, a pure one, for his name is glorified among the Gentiles" (Against Heresies 4:17:5 [A.D. 189]).

Transubstantiation part

Ignatius of Antioch
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr
"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus
"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2).



Clement of Alexandria
"'Eat my flesh,' [Jesus] says, 'and drink my blood.' The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

Tertullian
"[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Aug 31, 2008)

*Mary*

1) Marry, ever virgin

Origen (the protoevangelium referenced dates to 120 AD i believe) "The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity" (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

Athanasius "Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary" (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).

Jerome "[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man" (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).

Ambrose of Milan "Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son" (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388]).

Augustine"Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband" (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).

2) Mary, Mother of God

Irenaeus "The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God" (Against Heresies, 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).
Athanasius "The Word begotten of the Father from on high, inexpressibly, inexplicably, incomprehensibly, and eternally, is he that is born in time here below of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God" (The Incarnation of the Word of God 8 [A.D. 365]).

Ambrose of Milan "The first thing which kindles ardor in learning is the greatness of the teacher. What is greater than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose?" (The Virgins 2:2[7] [A.D. 377]).

Jerome "As to how a virgin became the Mother of God, he [Rufinus] has full knowledge; as to how he himself was born, he knows nothing" (Against Rufinus 2:10 [A.D. 401]).

"Do not marvel at the novelty of the thing, if a Virgin gives birth to God" (Commentaries on Isaiah 3:7:15 [A.D. 409])
----------------------
Reformers:
Mary the Mother of God

Throughout his life Luther maintained without change the historic Christian affirmation that Mary was the Mother of God:

"She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God ... It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God."1

Perpetual Virginity

Again throughout his life Luther held that Mary's perpetual virginity was an article of faith for all Christians - and interpreted Galatians 4:4 to mean that Christ was "born of a woman" alone.

"It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin."2

The Immaculate Conception

Yet again the Immaculate Conception was a doctrine Luther defended to his death (as confirmed by Lutheran scholars like Arthur Piepkorn). Like Augustine, Luther saw an unbreakable link between Mary's divine maternity, perpetual virginity and Immaculate Conception. Although his formulation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not clear-cut, he held that her soul was devoid of sin from the beginning:

"But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin..."3

Assumption

Although he did not make it an article of faith, Luther said of the doctrine of the Assumption:

"There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know."4

Honor to Mary

Despite his unremitting criticism of the traditional doctrines of Marian mediation and intercession, to the end Luther continued to proclaim that Mary should be honored. He made it a point to preach on her feast days.

"The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart."5

"Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honoured? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent's head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing."6 Luther made this statement in his last sermon at Wittenberg in January 1546.

John Calvin: It has been said that John Calvin belonged to the second generation of the Reformers and certainly his theology of double predestination governed his views on Marian and all other Christian doctrine . Although Calvin was not as profuse in his praise of Mary as Martin Luther he did not deny her perpetual virginity. The term he used most commonly in referring to Mary was "Holy Virgin".

"Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God."7

"Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ."8 Calvin translated "brothers" in this context to mean cousins or relatives.

"It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor."9

"To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honour to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son."10

Ulrich Zwingli:

"It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God."11

"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin."12 Zwingli used Exodus 4:22 to defend the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity.

"I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary."13

"Christ ... was born of a most undefiled Virgin."14

"It was fitting that such a holy Son should have a holy Mother."15

"The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow."16

1 Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St. Louis], volume 24, 107.

2 Martin Luther, op. cit., Volume 11, 319-320.

3 Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works,

English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St.

Louis], Volume 4, 694.

4 [Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works (Translation by William J. Cole) 10, p. 268.

5 [Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works

(Translation by William J. Cole) 10, III, p.313.

6 Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St. Louis], Volume 51, 128-129.

7 John Calvin, Calvini Opera [Braunshweig-Berlin, 1863-1900], Volume 45, 35.

8 Bernard Leeming, "Protestants and Our Lady", Marian Library Studies, January 1967, p.9.

9 John Calvin, Calvini Opera [Braunshweig-Berlin, 1863-1900], Volume 45, 348.

10 John Calvin, A Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke (St. Andrew's Press, Edinburgh, 1972), p.32.

11 Ulrich Zwingli, In Evang. Luc., Opera Completa [Zurich, 1828-42], Volume 6, I, 639

12 Ulrich Zwingli, Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 1, 424.


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Aug 31, 2008)

I cant for the life of me remeber where i got all these quotes- Ive read much of them in the actual writings... but these quotes i had saved on my drive for a while... probably from a Catholic site.


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Sep 1, 2008)

Davidius said:


> ModernPuritan? said:
> 
> 
> > and then one more question... forget any other doctrines
> ...



here is the retort to that, I guess proving that we cant concretely prove the CHurch at that time was Sola Fide

SAINT JOHN CHRYSOSTOM on Justification-Salvation

They are citizens of the Church who were wandering in error. They have their lot in RIGHTEOUSNESS who were in the confusion of sin. For not only are they free, but HOLY also; not only holy, but RIGHTEOUS too; not only righteous, but SONS also; not only sons, but HEIRS as well; not only heirs, but BROTHERS even of Christ; not only brothers of Christ, but also co-heirs; not only co-heirs, but His very members; not only His members, but a temple too; not a temple only, but likewise the instruments of the SPIRIT. You see how many are the benefits of BAPTISM, and some think its heavenly GRACE consists ONLY in the remission of sins; but we have enumerated TEN honors. For this reason we baptize even INFANTS, though they are not defiled by sin [or do not have sins]: so that there may be given to them HOLINESS, RIGHTEOUSNESS, ADOPTION, INHERITANCE, BROTHERHOOD with Christ, and that they may be His MEMBERS. (from Baptismal Catecheses 2:4)

"He that believes in the Son has everlasting life [John 3:36]... "Is it ENOUGH, then, to BELIEVE in the Son, " someone will say, "in order to have everlasting life?" BY NO MEANS! Listen to Christ declare this Himself when He says, "Not everyone who says to Me, ’Lord! Lord!’ shall enter into the kingdom of heaven" [Matt 7:21]; and the blasphemy against the Spirit is alone sufficient to cast him into hell. But why should I speak of a PART of our teaching? For if a man BELIEVE rightly in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, but does not LIVE RIGHTLY, his faith will avail him NOTHING TOWARD SALVATION. (Homilies on John 31:1)

"If salvation is BY GRACE [Rom 11:6], " someone will say, "why is it we are not all saved?" BECAUSE YOU DID NOT WILL IT; for grace, even though it be grace, saves the WILLING, not those who are NOT willing and who TURN AWAY from it and who constantly fight against it and OPPOSE themselves to it. (Homilies on Romans 18:5)

We have been freed from punishment, we have put off all wickedness, and we have been REBORN from above [John 3:3, 5], and we have risen again, with the old man buried [Rom 6:3-4], and we have been redeemed, and we have been SANCTIFIED, and we have been given ADOPTION INTO SONSHIP, and we have been JUSTIFIED [cf. 1 Cor 6:11], and we have been made BROTHERS of the Only-begotten, and we have been constituted joint heirs and concorporeal with Him and have been perfected in His flesh, and have been united to Him as a body to its head. All of this Paul calls an "abundance of grace" [Rom 5:17], showing that what we have received is not just a medicine to counteract the wound, but even health and comeliness and honor and glory and dignities going far beyond what were natural to us. (Homilies on Romans 10:2)

The following from St. John Chrysostom from Matt1618 (see links below) and the NPNF Volumes:

"To declare His righteousness." What is declaring of righteousness? Like the declaring of His riches, not only for Him to be rich Himself, but also to make others rich, or of life, not only that He is Himself living, but also that He makes the dead to live; and of His power, not only that He is Himself powerful, but also that He makes the feeble powerful. So also is the declaring of His righteousness not only that He is Himself righteous, but that He doth also make them that are filled with the putrefying sores (katasapentaj) of sin suddenly righteous. (Homily 7 on Romans 3, NPNF1, Volume 11, page 378)

(Romans 4) Verse 4 "For to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt." Then is not this last the greatest? he means. By no means: for it is to the believer that it is reckoned. But it would not have been reckoned, unless there were something that he contributed himself. And so he too hath God for his debtor, and debtor too for no common things, but great and high ones. For to show his high-mindedness and spiritual understanding, he does not say "to him that believeth" merely, but Ver. 5. "To him that believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly." For reflect how great a thing it is to be persuaded and have full confidence that God is able on a sudden not to free a man who has lived in impiety from punishment only, but even to make him just, and to count him worthy of those immortal honors. (Homily 8 on Romans 4, NPNF1: Volume 11, page 386)

For what he saith is this, "Your salvation is not our work alone, but your own as well; for both we in preaching to you the word endure affliction, and ye in receiving it endure the very same; we to impart to you that which we received, ye to receive what is imparted and not to let it go." Now what humility can compare with this, seeing that those who fell so far short of him he raiseth to the same dignity of endurance? for he saith, "Which worked in the enduring of the same sufferings;" for not through believing only cometh your salvation, but also through the suffering and enduring the same things with us. (Homily on the Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, NPNF1: Volume 12, page 277)

For, "think not, " saith he, "because ye have believed, that this is sufficient for your salvation: since if to me neither preaching nor teaching nor bringing over innumerable persons, is enough for salvation unless I exhibit my own conduct also unblameable, much less to you. (Homily 23, NPNF1: Volume 12, page 133)

(Galatians 5) Verse 6 "For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith working through love." What is the meaning of "working through love?" Here he gives them a hard blow, by showing that this error had crept in because the love of Christ had not been rooted within them. For to believe is not all that is required, but also to abide in love. (Commentary on Galatians 5, NPNF1: Volume 13, page 37)


----------



## christianyouth (Sep 1, 2008)

Jeff, this is such an important issue that I think you should go and read the original sources instead of a seemingly Catholic interpretation of them. I can point out at least one of the articles you posted being a VERY far stretch on what Clement is saying, but it would be better if you would just read it for yourself and see if his writing on 'rewards' is speaking of eternal life(only someone with an ax to grind would say that the section on 'rewards' was speaking of eternal life).

So really man, read the primary sources. Some of them are incredibly devotional and will offer great insights into the Christian life. Clement, for example, made a good point in his epistle to the Corinthians about the importance of showing hospitality, drawing from a few OT instances when hospitality was shown. Or the epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus which reminded me of the importance of a holy, vibrant Christian community as the most important apologetic. There is just so much good to be extracted from these early writings, that you are doing yourself a disservice to read secondary sources on them.

Now, about Justification by faith alone in Church history:
Read Clement of Rome, he clearly teaches.
Read Polycarp's epistle to the Philippians, he clearly denies it.

It may end up being a mixed bag. From what I've found, all of the 'Church fathers' differed from themselves. BUT, it may be that none of the ECF believed in Sola Fide. Would this disprove the doctrine? Maybe. But remember, as a brother who posted awhile ago said, can we apply this same standard to the RCC? 

In other words, their doctrine that baptism removes original sin, can that be found in any pre-Augustinian Fathers? If not, then it should also be scrutinized. What about Papal supremacy? Can this be found to be either expressed or implied in the ECF? If not, then it should also be rejected. In fact, original sin is not even really a factor in the Early Church's writings before Tertullian, so this means that if we look to the ECF for our doctrine, original sin would also have to be scrutinized.


So, read the Early Fathers! You'll be blessed, but I don't know how much clarity they will bring to the Protestant/Catholic debate. I'm going through them myself, and if I find some statements pertaining to their view of the Church + Authority, I'll send you a PM. Good luck on your search, brother. 

EDIT : The best historical argument that I've seen against Catholicism has been the book _History of the Catholic Church_ by Hans Kung. He's a disgruntled Catholic who basically argues that the early Church was egalitarian, locally governed, and not even identifiable with the Roman Catholic church of today. He argues some specific points that are very interesting, such as 'The Rise of the Petrine idea', in which he shows that the idea that "Upon this rock I will build this church" was not interpreted as modern Catholics believe it until the late second century, when already Rome began a large push to BE supreme.

There are a lot of good points he makes. He's not a Protestant, but he is arguing for reform WITHIN the Catholic Church. He's a liberal and it does emerge a couple of times in the book, but for the most part, it's a solid book. The only down side to the book is that he doesn't reference much of his claims, he 'assumes' you believe him. So have internet explorer ready when you read this book, and be prepared to test his historical facts. And not with the Catholic encyclopedia!


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 1, 2008)

Davidius said:


> ModernPuritan? said:
> 
> 
> > as far as reformed doctrines- TULIP
> ...



Indeed. The method of inquiry in the OP is an excellent way to end up crossing the Tiber or going to Constantinople. Also, it seems that some effectively have a Protestant magisterium as well, i.e. if Knox, Calvin et. al. believed it it must be right and if they disagreed with it it must be wrong. Over and over again on this board and on other forums I've seen people make major shifts based on what this or that Reformer or leader advocated. In many cases these were indeed great men. But changing your belief and practice based on primarily on what certain leaders have believed in the past is an implicit denial of _sola scriptura_ however much you may formally confess it.


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 1, 2008)

ModernPuritan? said:


> and then one more question... forget any other doctrines
> 
> Sola Fide,
> Sola SCripture.



James White has a lot of materials on his site addressing the above issues, and there are other sites that are helpful as well.


----------



## Davidius (Sep 1, 2008)

Pilgrim said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> > ModernPuritan? said:
> ...



Very true, and yet certainly not without its own complications, at least on a practical level, if not a theoretical one. No matter how much I hear folks chant "sola scriptura, not 'solo' scriptura," what you're outlining above leads necessarily (in my opinion) to the conclusion that each man must be his own theologian. We simply cannot accept _any_ interpretation as authoritative simply because one person (individual theologian) or a group of people (council) say that it is scriptural. As someone who is in class most of the day, has homework to do in the evening, and is now married, my mind has very often been burdened by the fact that, no matter how great Calvin was, I can't just believe anything he said because he was Calvin, and must "double-check" his work. Not only does this seem difficult for me because I'm nowhere near as erudite, but I also just don't have the time to read volumes and volumes of theology, as well as many chapters of the bible each day on top of my other responsibilities. 

Here's a practical application: given that the teaching magisterium of the Church isn't infallible, and that the Westminster doctrine of the perspicuity of scripture begs the question, where do we begin to draw the boundaries of orthodox Christianity? Some on this board believe that Calvinism itself does this; others take a more "catholic" view of using the ecumenical creeds. But this is where the problem, as I see it, comes in. Going back to the fact that the magisterium isn't infallible, how can we even set the Trinity as the first guideline to orthodox Christianity since the Trinity isn't clearly stated in the bible but is a systematic formulation deemed scriptural by councils in the 4th century? We can't take the decrees Nicene council, or, for that matter, any other council which spoke about the Trinity, as having any intrinsic ecclesiastical authority. Luther said that popes and councils have erred, so it seems theoretically possible that Nicea erred. So how can we ever say "case closed" for any of the heresies that were the boundaries of orthodoxy throughout a period of history when it was taken for granted that the magisterium exercised actual dogmatic authority? How can we be sure that there won't be another Reformation in 300 years in which large numbers of teachers, as in the 16th and 17th centuries, realize that whichever church they're a part of has been teaching heretical doctrine for X number of centuries? Perhaps it could happen to a large body such as the RCC, or it could happen within NAPARC. Once those people split off from the defunct pseudo-church and start their own, on what basis will the Reformed say that their creeds and councils have the authority to denounce the new movement? 

An example to illustrate the above paragraph would be the Synod of Dordt. In another thread, someone said that Arminianism had been deemed heresy by "the Church." Now, since the Synod of Dordt was a meeting of European church leaders representing mostly Presbyterian and Reformed Christians, what sort of force do we give the statement that "the Church" declared Arminianism heresy? Was Arminianism declared heresy once and for all? Were churches in other parts of the world meant to be doctrinally bound by declarations made by the synod of another Church body in Europe? What about the myriads of people today who _don't_ think that Arminianism is heresy? If all of these churches decided to have an ecumenical council and declare Calvinism heresy, what would be our response? It would be a meeting of Christians like the one held in 1618. Would we say that they're just stupid and can't read the bible? 

Anyway, at this point in history we obviously don't have numbers on our side like the evangelicals. We don't have the belief in an infallible magisterium on our side like the RCCs, so what do we have? We can't say "the guiding/promise/whatever of the Holy Spirit," because that's simply more question begging. We all say we have the guiding promise of the Holy Spirit.

So how do we get out of double-speak when we say that our confessions and councils aren't binding for all Christians while at the same time wanting to get away from the chaos of which we have always been accused by the RCC without begging the question?

**EDIT**
To make sure that the relevance of this post is clear, I want to clarify by saying I would really like to know how to deal with this problem, Chris, because I think the problem of "implicit faith" that you mentioned is to some extent inescapable. I don't have time to be a theologian. I've tried for a few years now and it's too much for me to handle, at least at this point in my life, and I saw that I was giving implicit faith to this or that person without even realizing it. And if I _could_ juggle it, wouldn't that be a tacit reinforcement of Rome's criticism of the Reformation?


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Sep 1, 2008)

but, is the claim of one using ones private interpretation in crossing the tiber really valid?

assume Catholicism is right for a min. 

If a protestant "goes home", how is this a private interpretation. He is coming into the knowledge of the truth, which has been established from the apostles.. He is not reinterpreting them. PI, would seem to be starting from the truth, and venturing from there. Not starting from error into truth.. God would be behind the error to truth, and the truth has been established.


----------

