Posted on 05/06/2007 11:58:17 AM PDT by NYer
Most of the post centers on the tussle over ETS matters and leadership, (he has resigned from the presidency) but:
There is a conversation in ETS that must take place, a conversation about the relationship between Evangelicalism and what is called the “Great Tradition,” a tradition from which all Christians can trace their spiritual and ecclesiastical paternity. It is a conversation that I welcome, and it is one in which I hope to be a participant. But my presence as ETS president, I have concluded, diminishes the chances of this conversation occurring. It would merely exacerbate the disunity among Christians that needs to be remedied.
The past four months have moved quickly for me and my wife. As you probably know, my work in philosophy, ethics, and theology has always been Catholic friendly, but I would have never predicted that I would return to the Church, for there seemed to me too many theological and ecclesiastical issues that appeared insurmountable. However, in January, at the suggestion of a dear friend, I began reading the Early Church Fathers as well as some of the more sophisticated works on justification by Catholic authors. I became convinced that the Early Church is more Catholic than Protestant and that the Catholic view of justification, correctly understood, is biblically and historically defensible. Even though I also believe that the Reformed view is biblically and historically defensible, I think the Catholic view has more explanatory power to account for both all the biblical texts on justification as well as the church’s historical understanding of salvation prior to the Reformation all the way back to the ancient church of the first few centuries. Moreover, much of what I have taken for granted as a Protestant—e.g., the catholic creeds, the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, the Christian understanding of man, and the canon of Scripture—is the result of a Church that made judgments about these matters and on which non-Catholics, including Evangelicals, have declared and grounded their Christian orthodoxy in a world hostile to it. Given these considerations, I thought it wise for me to err on the side of the Church with historical and theological continuity with the first generations of Christians that followed Christ’s Apostles.
(Comments are open over there, btw. Worth a visit to add your support, if you like!)
First you have to prove that Peter was indeed the "first Pope" to make this statement vail
. We see nothing written until about the year 300 calling Peter the pope.
The reading of scripture indicates that IF ANYONE was the head of the new church it was James, that presided over the first church council and made the first council decision .
There is not biblical account of Peter at Rome at all.
Paul, who was contemporary to Peter never greeted the "Pope " in Rome or the "Bishop of Rome " or even his fellow apostle Peter in Rome when he lists the workers in the church of Rome.
Peter was called to be the apostle to the Jews not the gentiles.
Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as [the gospel] of the circumcision [was] unto Peter;
Gal 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles
Peter would have had to be disobedient to Gods call, to be in gentile Rome
Notice he did not consider himself to be the head of the church
1 Peter 5:1 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ's sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed"
Peter exalted Jesus and faith in his name for salvation .
Acts 10:43 To him all the prophets witness that, through his name, whoever believes in him will receive remission of sins
Acts 15:11But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.
Whose hands had sown the Divine seed in the ground, that is Rome, we shall never know Conjectures built upon foundations too insecure to be sanctioned history ,takes the Apostle Peter to Rome during the first reign of Claudius AD 42...About the time that that St. Paul gained his liberty, St Peter came to Rome.He had perhaps been there before. But it can not be proved. We have no information whatever as to Peters apostolic work in Rome
Early History of the Church Abbe Duchesne ( Roman Catholic Historian)
Where Christ is there is the church ...
ears to hear
They called themselves Christians the "catholic" ( Christian universal church) . Note the small c
I saw it there and it is not sourced . There is no valid proof there that it was ever his prayer..
You think the Fathers taught sola scriptura (they didn't), and you want to use that to thrash Catholics, but on the other hand, we know they prayed to Mary, and you call that an "error".
How do you know which is an error and which is not, except to apply your own beliefs and practices and read them back into the Fathers?
I count it an error based on the words of your own church fathers
"For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found ALL matters that concern faith and the manner of life,--to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages."
- Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 2:9) I have an objective, living standard of teaching and belief. You have the Bible, which is good, but which you must necessarily read through the lens of your own preconceptions and ideas, which is bad.
"For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?"
- Ambrose (On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102)
You do not understand sola scriptura my friend
The Mormons make the kind of same distinction and claim that even though there are many gods they only worship the god of THIS world.
Can you please define what holiness is? Is it like water filling a cup? What is it to be holy and where does it "reside" in people and objects ?
My situation is similar to his. I was baptized in the Catholic church. The story of my baptism still holds a special place in my heart and it always will. My mother calls me every April 29th to ask me if I remember what day it is. The memory of my first Communion is sort of fuzzy, but still dear, and the memory of my confirmation is without meaning, so my memories are a mixed bag of holiness and indifference.
My situation is dissimilar to his in that I don't see myself ever returning to the Catholic church for reasons both substantive and personal. My ties to Roman Catholicism were forged in a crucible of the punitive, there's not a whole lot that can grow from that as the agnostic diaspora of so many of the Catholics of my age and that of those just a couple of years older than me attests.
I've been attending a Reformed Presbyterian church for a few weeks now. Following worship I've had dinner with the pastor and his wife and precious kids. He's smart, young, devoted, energetic, unbigoted and worthy of his title. I witnessed Protestant celebration of the Eucharist this past Sunday, and could not stop crying for the reverence and humility exhibited by the pastor and running through the congregation.
I struggle so very much to try find a place for myself at the Christian table, and I often grow despondent because of the struggle. It may well be that one day I despair of it, and finally admit to myself that I may not be Christian at all, and that perhaps it was just an illusion that I ever really was. At this point, I'm just going to take one day at a time, and pray for wisdom.
Let me close with an excerpt from the truth-loving, fully introspective Philip Schaff and his writing on German Theology & the Church Question.
Then again it must be proved that Protestantism has its foundation substantially in Apostolical Christianity. For the New Testament, the Word of Christ and his inspired organs, is, after all, the final resort in all religious questions, and whatever has not connecting point with it cannot be sustained in the end. The germs of all legitimate stages of progress must already appear in the Apostolic Church, whilst a development beyond Christ himself and his Apostles, in the sense of Rationalists and Free-thinkers of all classes, must naturally assume the character of a degeneration, and a relapse into Heathenism or Judaism. With such development we, of course, have not the least sympathy whatever, but abhor it as essentially antichristian. But the Reformers, we all know, without exception placed themselves on the Bible as the only infallible rule of Christian faith and practice. Now it would indeed be an inextricable historical riddle, if the close association which Protestantism has from the start formed with the Bible, and if the zeal with which it continually devotes itself to its translation, interpretation and promulgation throughout the world, should rest finally upon a mere delusion.It is indeed, manifestly impossible for the Bible to contain all that the various denominations and sects imagine to find in it--but which, in truth, they force into it, by means of their private interpretation--or it would contradict itself, and cease to be the truth any longer. It cannot possibly contain at once the contrary doctrines of Episcopalianism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, Zuinglianism, Presbyterianism, Congregationalism, Methodism, the Baptists and Quakers, (if by special indulgence, we should number the last two with orthodox Protestantism); it cannot, at the same time, teach and condemn the doctrine of Predestination, or both affirm and deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist; it cannot at one time declare Baptismal Regeneration, and yet degrade the Sacrament to the level of an empty sign; it cannot enjoin the baptism of Infants, and yet reject it as unchristian; it cannot establish three order in the Ministry, and then again, but one, or teach no peculiar spiritual office at all, but only a universal Priesthood, and favor whatever other points of difference there may be in Doctrine, Constitution and Cultus, partly essential, partly non-essential, concerning which Protestants have quarreled already for three hundred years, with equally zealous appeal to the Bible, without advancing a single step towards each other. Still justice requires us to allow, that they agree, we will not say in all--as this would evidently be saying too much--but in most of the fundamental articles of the Gospel; for if it were otherwise, we would according to the incontrovertible maxim, "out of the Church, no salvation," be compelled to deny the possibility of salvation in one or the other of these communions, to which extent, even the extreme Puseyites and Old-Lutherans will not venture.
Some such relation then must evidently exist between the Bible and orthodox Protestantism in order to explain intelligently their close connection for three hundred years. In this dilemma, German Theology again comes to our relief and transfers us, to what appears to us, the only correct point of view.
Modern exegetical investigations, in which sphere, as is well known, it has displayed an extraordinary activity, place it beyond all doubt for us at least, that we must distinguish three stages of development and types of doctrine in the apostolic Church, which of course, in no way, contradict or exclude each other, as the school of Dr. Baur in Tubingen, after the precedence of the ancient Gnostics, maintains, but mutually complete each other, to with:--Jewish Christianity, represented by the Apostles, Peter and James, Gentile Christianity represented by the Gentile Apostle Paul and his co-laborers, and the higher union of both by John, the beloved disciple, who, surviving all his colleagues, exhibits the third and last period and completion of the Apostolic Church, and looks forward, at the same time, as the Prophet of the new covenant, through the most distant future, to the new heavens and the new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness and peace for evermore.
If this view be correct--and we find it more and more confirmed the longer we study the New Testament in its proper connection--we have a polar star to guide us through the entire labyrinth of Church History, in her manifold phases and stages of development. According to this view then, the history of the Catholic Church, which stays herself on Peter as her rock [10], and derives her doctrine of justification, faith, and good works chiefly from the first two Gospels and from the Epistle of James, corresponds to Apostolic Jewish Christianity, and with it lays stress principally on authority, law and the closest possible connection with the theocracy of the Old Testament. Protestantism, which originally proceeded from a renewed study of the Epistles of Paul, is a onesided enforcing of the paulino-Gentile Christianity with its spirit of evangelical freedom and independence, over against the jewish Christian excesses. In its relation to Catholicism it has thus far imitated St. Paul far more in his temporary inimical collision with Peter at Antioch, (Gal. 2:11, 19) than in his subsequent friendly co-operation with him, and has frequently given occasion to his antagonist to repeat the warning of Perter against the abuse of the writings of Paul "in which there are some things hard to be understood." (2 Peter 3:16.) Then again Protestantism has unfolded thus far almost exclusively the anthropological and soteriological doctrines of Paul, his Epistles to the Galatians and Romans; whilst the later Epistles of the same Apostle, especially his profound doctrine of the Church, as the one, undivided body of Christ, the fulness of him that filleth all in all, have evidently not yet received their full share of attention.
As soon as this shall be done, there will be at the same time a certain approximation to the Catholic, church-principle, and the way become prepared for the third and last Period of the Christian Church, in which the great truths of Catholicism and evangelical Protestantism, with the exclusion of their mutual errors, may become united in a higher union and harmony, through the renewal and complete appropriation of the spirit of John, especially of his doctrine of the person of Christ, and the living communion of the faithful with Him and each other. But this union must be preceded by a universal repentance, and we may here appropriate to ourselves the significant words of the great and generous Catholic Divine, Moehler (Symbolik, Page 358, sp. 6 Ed.,) who, after frankly acknowledging the unwarrantable lack of principle in so many priests, bishops and Popes, "whom hell has swallowed up," as the cause of corruption in his Church and of the Reformation in the sixteenth century, adds--"This is the point (the consciousness of guilt) at with Catholics and Protestants will in great multitudes one day meet and give each other the hand of friendship. Both, conscious of guilt, must exclaim, We all have erred--it is the Church only--as an institution of Christ--which cannot err; we all have sinned--the Church alone is spotless on earth. This open confession of mutual guilt will be followed by a festival of reconciliation."
The rest is here, in case you're interested.
Would YOU please tell us what holiness is?
Another frequent antagonist on this forum likes to pose either/or questions, questions which strike me as all about how an eagerness to win a point can obscure the truth. I think that challenging someone to "define" holiness and to explain what is meant by localizing it in any way is not going to do any of us much good.
We have read about holy people and holy places, have we not? If God tells Moses to take his shoes off because the ground is holy, what questions should we ask God?
I do not get the "absence of evidence is the same thing as evidence of absence" argument. We do not have proof that Peter was in Rome. We also have mighty few people disputing it for quite some time, and a lot of the modern disputes are downright weird and have a tinfoil hat feel to them.
Contemporary Popes do not always in every appeal they make refer to themselves as head of the Church.
It may well be that Campion nor I understand Sola ScripturaI'm afraid though that it will turn out to be as protean and as difficult to delineate and to prove as coming from Scripture as you all complain some of our teachings are. I would be interested in reading your explanation and proofs.
I understand it very well, actually.
I understand it so well that I just put to you a question put to John Calvin ("How do we know what books belong in the canon?") and noted that Calvin's answer was just as contrary to sola scriptura as yours is, because it was effectively the same as yours ("The spiritual man will know what canonical scripture is by the indwelling inspiration of the Holy Spirit.")
Both you and he point to an authority outside the Bible as the basis of your canon. You have to do that, unless you're simply going to walk away from the issue (the "presuppositionalism" of Van Til). But by doing that, you demonstrate that sola scriptura is internally inconsistent, because you have to appeal to an authority outside the scripture to even know what the scripture is.
I think the Eastern Orthodox are high-fiving each other right now about being left out of this particular group hug. >:-0
Gospodi pomeluy (that's "Lord have mercy" for us western barbarians).
And by the way, I'm a little afraid of the Germans. They've been good for several decades now, but if and when they start talking martial, it's time for everyone to sit up and take notice. Though, both my mom and dad who were on the lam (sp?) during WWII with German soldiers because other German soldiers had 'requistioned' their homes as garrison quarters, said that the German soldiers were quite good to them. Well, except for the nasty surprise of finding what furniture they had, reduced to little piles of ashes.
And continuing to be off the subject and mark, I think President Eisenhower is underrated. He called DeGaulle (sp?) the or his cross of Lorraine. I laughed right out loud when I read that!
Lord have mercy, indeed. I love the West. IIRC, every time bad times fell upon the Israelites, from Eden on down, they were heading East. :)
And as someone who is a full-blooded German, let me assure you that both German beer and German engineering are far, far better than either German philosophy or German theology. ;-)
However, I wouldn't mind hoisting a brew with Dr. Martin Luther sometime, though he and I would have to agree to disagree, natch ...
Mad what does holiness mean ?
You are the one that said men can contain holiness.
What makes one holy?
This just proves you do not know what sola scriptura is or means... you are busy boxing a straw man
You are the one that said men can contain holiness.
Where exactly did I say that men can "contain" holiness. Please give me a link or footnote or some kind of reference that I can follow to where I said that men can "contain" holiness? I used the word contain? I used language which MUST be interpreted as though holiness were something which can be contained?
As for humans being holy, I would rest Paul's frequent references to the holy ones.
Ping me when the games are over and brothers can discuss important things without trying to score off one another.
I am trying to understand what you think holiness is and how one gets it. If you do not really know then just say so ok?
You are the one that said men can contain holiness.
Where exactly did I say that men can "contain" holiness. Please give me a link or footnote or some kind of reference that I can follow to where I said that men can "contain" holiness? I used the word contain? I used language which MUST be interpreted as though holiness were something which can be contained?
You said this
"But the Scripture clearly tells us that holiness can reside in things, as when the woman touched the clothing of Jesus, and the sick were cured by touching the clothing of Paul.
That makes holiness a thing that can have residence in things. That is why I asked for your definition
As for humans being holy, I would rest Paul's frequent references to the holy ones.
Where is their holiness? If it can reside in THINGS can it reside in people?
Ping me when the games are over and brothers can discuss important things without trying to score off one another.
This was not a game, but it did show that like so many you do not what to consider what you believe or why, you would rather repeat what others tell you to believe. Thats fine but please do not try to have others accept what you say just because you say it
Wanna bet? Check the posts AND the people who posted them.
And for the rest of it, Do you have no idea of holiness or what is holy and all that?
This was not a game, but it did show that like so many you do not what to consider what you believe or why, you would rather repeat what others tell you to believe. Thats fine but please do not try to have others accept what you say just because you say it
Wow have YOU got me mixed up with somebody else! Twice! I don't know that I ever in my adult life have tried to have somebody accept what I said just because I said it. Sometimes I hopes they would believe me, but except maybe for my kid, I usually welcome a friendly enquiry.
But here I am confused with somebody else and then told things about me that everyone who knows me knows aren't true -- and in the same paragraph you spring the gotcha while debnying you had one to spring.
When you want to try again on a non-adversarial footing, you know where to find me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.