Wednesday, August 01, 2012

Tyler McNabb's deleted post combox

Tyler McNabb, to whom I responded in my previous post, has entirely removed the article announcing his apostasy from his blog. It is strangely similar to Jason Stellman's recent publishing and then subsequent removal of his own apostannoucement.

The interaction in his combox was lively and entertaining, as well as quite invigorating as again, numerous Roman Catholics made attempts to defend their position, authority, and epistemology, which attempts, one after the other, were shown to be without any substance. Sadly, I counted precisely zero points that were anything close to new or innovative, that could serve to overcome the longstanding Sola Scripturist refutations to typical Roman Catholic arguments. Instead, they just served up the same old stale wafers.
Amazingly, even such a luminary as Patrick Madrid showed how out of touch he is with the ineffectiveness of the rusty, senile Catholic Answers canards.

So that you can see just how well the interaction went for the Roman Catholics there, I will reproduce below the comments from the blogpost, as I saved the page periodically throughout the day yesterday, having learned from Jason Stellman's flip-flop. Out of courtesy for Mr. McNabb, I will not reproduce the text of his article, but simply the comments in which I interacted with his post and with other commenters.

Thread 1
Thread 2
Thread 3
Thread 4
Thread 5
Thread 6




Thread 1

rhology says:
Hello,
I am quite saddened to hear of what amounts to apostasy and I have some reactions to what you’ve written here.
Now coming back to how my graduate studies in philosophy helped pave the way, it was by reading the medieval Catholic philosophers like Anselm, Aquinas, and Molina, as well as reading contemporary Catholic philosophers like Feser, van Inwagen, Stump, and Flint. Reading philosophers like these allowed me to see that Catholics were not the enemies.
How funny. Reading the Scripture allowed me to see that Roman dogma (not “Catholics”, however) is an (not the) enemy.
Unsurprising that someone who shows little indication of being grounded firmly in Scripture would fall into such error.
What is a little surprising is that someone who is attempting to sound like he’s really thought this all the way through would say something like “Catholics were not the enemies”. I mean, are you reacting against backwoods fundies or some other class of ignoramus Protestant, or are you supposed to be appealing to people who have a halfway-decent idea of what they’re talking about and what the true issues at hand are?
“There was even one night last Mother’s Day where I had a dream that a man was calling me to become a Catholic. What is even more strange is that the same night, my wife had a spiritual dream. The conclusion of her dream was that we were not to go to Israel but we were to help defend the faith here. Why were these dreams so strange? These dreams were strange for us because the few weeks beforehand, we were praying on the topics of going to Israel and if Rome’s doctrines were true. Needless to say, we attended Mass that day.
The other day I had a disgusting borderline-pornographic dream, I’m sorry to say.
I doubt you’d think, however, that I’d be justified in now engaging in p√¶dophilia.
as I figured presuppositionally, if Peter is reining still, then Rome is true
Well, he’s not. He died.
*Jesus* is reigning still.
It’s pretty common for Romanists to say stuff like that, about Peter, other Popes, or Mary. It’s amazing to me that they don’t see how it clearly denigrates Jesus.
It was overwhelming to see that the early fathers believed in the real presence/sacrifice in regards to the Eucharist (some even quoting Mal. for justification), baptismal regeneration, bishops, and confession (Cyprian, Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine etc.). Have I mentioned how nice it is to now have a Church history?
You must have missed how Rome claims the support of the unanimous consent of the “Fathers” for several of her dogmas, and that there is no such consent.
You must have missed that numerous “Fathers” teach “Protestant” doctrine, such as sola fide, iconoclasm, and Sola Scriptura.
You clearly missed the implication that you’re relying on men like Origen – the universalism-espousing father of allegorical interpretation uber alles – as one of your guidiing lights. How do you justify the picking and choosing in which you have to engage?
Oh wait, let me guess – the modern Magisterium told you which writings of which men we are to acknowledge as prooftexts, and others are to be ignored/rejected/suppressed.
“Fathers” are not our authority. God is. Correct me if I missed it but I don’t see much indication at all in this post that the Scriptures were your authority even as you began this journey, that you were looking for how best to follow what God said, as opposed to finding a system that you could overlay on top and prooftext with at least some degree of credibility. Sad.
Peace,
Rhology
  • Devin Rose says:
    Rhology has made an appearance!
    Tyler said: “if Peter is reining still, then Rome is true”
    Rhology replied: “Well, he’s not. He died. *Jesus* is reigning still.”
    False dichotomy. Further, Jesus said that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are not dead, but alive. Same goes for Peter. So while he died, he still lives in Christ.
    We all believe that Jesus reigns still, but we disagree about what authority He set up.
    • rhology says:
      Rhology has made an appearance!
      In the flesh! ;-D
      Almost…
      Jesus said that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are not dead, but alive.
      This is just one more of the dozen popular grab-bag throwaway arguments that have had standing rebuttals for years. Do we really have to play this game every time we interact?
      They’re alive TO GOD but not alive TO US.
      That’s why an Israelite during Moses’ time would have been stoned for idolatry had he been caught praying to Abraham and yet tried to excuse himself with the same thing: “But Abraham is still alive!”
      No, he’s not.
      We all believe that Jesus reigns still, but we disagree about what authority He set up.
      But see, that’s not where Tyler laid his emphasis, and that’s important.
    • Devin Rose says:
      Rhology,
      We are one body in Christ. We do not cease to be members of His body when we die. So to say that someone is alive to God but dead to us doesn’t make sense. Nowhere does the Bible say that; instead the communion of saints is strongly indicated.
      This isn’t conjuring dead spirits. It is praying for one another as one body. It’s a family, with God as the Head.
      I’ll let this be my last comment on this thread; feel free to have the last word.
    • rhology says:
      We are one body in Christ.
      Well, *WE* are not (b/c you’re not in the Body of Christ), but yes, the Body of Christ, living and dead, is one.
      But that doesn’t change the fact that we interact differently with the dead members of it, as the Word of God has made abundantly clear. You’re not dealing with what’s important here.
      So to say that someone is alive to God but dead to us doesn’t make sense.
      Roman dogma leads intelligent people to say really foolish things.
      Go ahead – invite Augustine, Origen, and Chrysostom over to your house for tea.
      Also invite three people from your own parish for tea, same time, same place.
      Do you think there might be a difference in the response rate? Is there a chance the first three will attend?
      Nowhere does the Bible say that; instead the communion of saints is strongly indicated.
      You mean, except for the prohibitions of talking to the dead?
      Except for the numerous references to people who have “fallen asleep”?
      You’re a slave to your tradition here, and in this area it’s more obvious than most.
      This isn’t conjuring dead spirits. It is praying for one another as one body. It’s a family, with God as the Head.?

      This is assertion without argument.
      Nice talking to you, although I could've wished you'd done more than rehash ground I've seen covered 100 times before.



Thread 2


Devin Rose says:
No one knows how many Protestant denominations there are. They multiply rapidly whenever some individual decides his church or denomination is interpreting the Bible erroneously on an issue he thinks is essential or important. So whether there are 2,000 or 9,000 or 30,000 denominations does not matter that much. The fact that there are thousands is enough to show sola Scriptura’s fruits: the individual as ultimate interpretive authority of the Scriptures was not God’s intention and has utterly failed to fulfill Christ’s prayer for unity in John 17.
  • rhology says:
    The fact that there are thousands is enough to show sola Scriptura’s fruits: the individual as ultimate interpretive authority of the Scriptures was not God’s intention and has utterly failed to fulfill Christ’s prayer for unity in John 17.
    Hmmm. Well, RCC’s “real” rule of faith is Apostolic Tradition, which includes written and unwritten tradition from the apostles, both in Scripture and in other places such as the lived-out faith of the church, the liturgies, the writings of church fathers down through the years, etc.
    Notice that, like the Scripture, this too forms a corpus with limits. The Da Vinci Code is not part of Apostolic Tradition. Neither is the Qur’an, nor is The Audacity of Hope (though, depending on which Roman priest you ask, that last one might be close). We and others have contended many times, rightly, that the limits to the Roman Canons of Scripture are not only poorly defined but actually non-existent. It is also indisputable that one’s presupposition of an infallible interpreter (whether she be Rome or EOC) will govern which little-t traditions are actually accepted, promoted if you will, to Big-T Sacred Apostolic Tradition, thus forming the basis for Roman or Orthodox dogma, leaving the little-t traditions to rot by the wayside, relegated to “Well, he was just speaking as a private theologian” or “That was just his opinion” status.
    But let’s leave all of that aside and grant that there is one big and awe-inspiring God-given Verbum Dei corpus of Scripture and Tradition that is the proper rule of faith for the church of Jesus Christ.
    The problem is obvious – Rome, sedevacantists, traditionalist Catholics, Pope Michael-ists, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, and various other churches with incompatible teachings all appeal to this set and limited corpus of Scripture and Tradition. It would appear that the criticism against Sola Scriptura of multiple denominations applies to the Roman and EO rule of faith as well.
    The Romanist or Orthodox might object: “But we’re not in communion with those schismatics/heterodox/heretics!” Now, what if I were to reply, as a member of a Southern Baptist church, that, have no fear my non-Sola Scripturist friends, my church holds that everyone who’s not a member of a Southern Baptist church is a schismatic/heterodox/heretic too? Would that make our Romanist or Orthodox friends feel better?
    Or would that make them criticise us even more strongly: “See? You Sola Scripturists can’t even hold communion with each other!”? Yep, my money’s on that one, too. We’re darned if we do and darned if we don’t, but somehow if the Romanists or Orthodox don’t hold communion with these other churches, that’s just fine. Such special pleading is just…special.
    So let me break this down as clearly as I can. “The Protestant Church” does not exist. Self-named “Protestant churches” vary so widely in doctrine and authority as to make points of comparison impossible to ascertain. If you want to compare unity and disunity, compare the adherences to the competing rules of faith. Or compare churches, like the Roman Church to the Southern Baptist Convention or the Pope Michael Catholic Church to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. What do we find, if we do this? How different from each other are the churches that hold to Scripture alone as rule of faith, and how different from each other are the churches that hold to “Sacred Apostolic Tradition” as rule of faith? Answer that and you’ll know one reason why we consider all this talk about how Tradition and Magisterium make for superior church unity to be just that – talk.
    • Devin Rose says:
      Rhology,
      Do you agree or disagree with the statement: “In Protestantism, the individual is the ultimate interpretive authority of the Scriptures”?
      Sure, there are schisms from the Catholic Church. But the fissiparous tendency of Protestantism is baked into its DNA since the individual is the ultimate interpretive authority; hence the exponential growth of Protestant denominations over the past five centuries. It doesn’t prove that Protestantism is false but it is strong evidence that there’s something wrong with how Protestantism answers the authority question.
      Catholicism has a principled way to tell the difference between conclusions that are mere human opinions versus those which actually express the assent to the deposit of faith itself. Protestantism does not. This is another way of explaining why Protestantism continually fractures and will always do so:http://mliccione.blogspot.com/2010/06/bad-arguments-against-magisterium-part.html
      God bless,
      Devin
    • rhology says:
      Devin Rose,
      Do you agree or disagree with the statement: “In Protestantism, the individual is the ultimate interpretive authority of the Scriptures”?
      1) Depends on which Protestant church you’re talking about. I am uninterested in defending liberals, Word of Faith heretics, or KJVO fanatics, for example.
      2) If you mean In Sola Scripturism, then I would disagree. Rather, the text is self-interpreting. The Holy Spirit is the ultimate interpretive authority of the Scriptures. The church of Jesus is the recipient of God’s revelation in the Scriptures, the church recognises, acknowledges, and obeys that which is communicated.
      Sure, there are schisms from the Catholic Church
      Wait, FULL STOP. There are schisms from the Catholic Church.
      Just like there are schisms from “Protestant” churches that profess the true Gospel. The difference is that you have the one large institution that either kicks out or doesn’t kick out the schismatics. Sola Scriptura churches are smaller and more numerous institutions, like local churches.
      But the fissiparous tendency of Protestantism is baked into its DNA since the individual is the ultimate interpretive authority
      Since this statement is based on a totally false premise, it is 100% dismissed.
      You should seriously know better by now, Devin. It’s disappointing to see someone as well-read and experienced as you are parroting stuff from Catholic Answers as if you were a first-time poster at Envoy or something.
      Catholicism has a principled way to tell the difference between conclusions that are mere human opinions versus those which actually express the assent to the deposit of faith itself.
      What is it?
    • Devin Rose says:
      Rhology,
      If you mean In Sola Scripturism, then I would disagree. Rather, the text is self-interpreting. The Holy Spirit is the ultimate interpretive authority of the Scriptures
      Sola scriptura reduces to Solo scriptura; the individual is the ultimate interpretive authority of the Scriptures. This was demonstrated by the Called to Communion guys sometime back:http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/
      Some Reformed apologists sought to rebut their argument but failed to do so.
      From the article: “Since apart from apostolic succession the determination of ‘the gospel’ and ‘sound doctrine’ rests ultimately and irrevocably on the individual’s own interpretation of Scripture in order to identify the Church, it follows that any particular line of any creed or Church decree becomes ‘authoritative’ only if the individual approves it as being sufficiently in agreement with his own interpretation of Scripture. If he judges it to be sufficiently contrary to his own interpretation of Scripture, and of sufficient import, then it ipso facto has no ‘authority’ over him.
      His disagreement with “the Church’s” interpretation of Scripture does not make his position heretical. It may very well be (according to his line of thought) that ‘the Church’ is heretical, and his own position is orthodox (and hence that he himself is the continuation of the actual Church, the rest being heretics). We may never know for sure this side of heaven. Thus ‘orthodoxy’ and ‘heresy’ are relativized by the rejection of apostolic succession. Because sola scriptura rejects apostolic succession no less than does solo scriptura, and because the rejection of apostolic succession entails the relativization of heresy and orthodoxy, there is also for this reason no principled difference between solo scriptura and sola scriptura.”
      The church of Jesus is the recipient of God’s revelation in the Scriptures, the church recognises, acknowledges, and obeys that which is communicated.
      Yet Reformed Protestants are forced into a tautology when asked to identify “the church” :
      “But how does he [Mathison] determine what is the Church? Being Reformed, he defines ‘Church’ as wherever the gospel is found, because the early Protestants defined the marks of the Church as including “the gospel,” where the gospel was determined by their own private interpretation of Scripture. So he claims that it is in the Church that the gospel is found, but he defines the Church in terms of the gospel. This is what we call a tautology.”
      For how the Catholic hermeneutical paradigm differs from the Protestant one, just read Dr. Liccione’s blog post that I linked to above, a few paragraphs down is where the answer to your question is.
      God bless,
      Devin
    • rhology says:
      the individual is the ultimate interpretive authority of the Scriptures.
      So that’s your outsider opinion. Thank you for expressing it. It’s wrong, however. No Sola Scripturist believes his interp of the Scripture is authoritative. Certainly he believes it is true until corrected by a better argument, but where are you getting this idea of authority?
      This was demonstrated by the Called to Communion guys
      And then interacted with at great length by many Reformed bloggers.
      Some Reformed apologists sought to rebut their argument but failed to do so.
      That sounds like your opinion. Perhaps you think the individual is the ultimate interpretive authority of that thread.
      Since apart from apostolic succession the determination of ‘the gospel’ and ‘sound doctrine’ rests ultimately and irrevocably on the individual’s own interpretation of Scripture in order to identify the Church
      1) Which misses the obvious – that the same could be said of apostolic succession. There’s not just Rome that claims it, and not just Rome that claims infallibile interpreter status.
      2) Perhaps you think it’s better to presuppose which church is the “True Church” and go from there, which as is easily demonstrated causes one to commit gross eisegetical errors when it comes to interpreting the Scripture, than to examine the Scripture and figure out which claimant(s) is/are the most faithful to what the Scripture says?
      it follows that any particular line of any creed or Church decree becomes ‘authoritative’ only if the individual approves it as being sufficiently in agreement with his own interpretation of Scripture
      1) Which could be said of Rome too.
      2) But this is, of course, not correct. The church of Jesus has authority in the matters Jesus has assigned to her, regardless of whether anyone outside the church thinks she does or not.
      If he judges it to be sufficiently contrary to his own interpretation of Scripture, and of sufficient import, then it ipso facto has no ‘authority’ over him.
      You mean in his opinion. But people get stuff wrong all the time.
      His disagreement with “the Church’s” interpretation of Scripture does not make his position heretical
      Why not? What if his disagreement is heretical? What if it’s a disagreement that the Trinity is true?
      It may very well be (according to his line of thought) that ‘the Church’ is heretical
      It may indeed be, but it doesn’t matter what the individual thinks. That’s what I’m trying to tell you.
      We may never know for sure this side of heaven.
      This is only true in a very limited range of items. It is not representative of how one can identify a church comprised of people who love the Gospel.
      Thus ‘orthodoxy’ and ‘heresy’ are relativized by the rejection of apostolic succession.
      This coming from an adherent to a church who excommunicated millions of people b/c they wouldn’t accede to its demands to accept, on her own authority, an addition to a central Creed of faith and b/c they disagreed about whether Eucharistic hosts should be leavened.
      A church who refuses to acknowledge that the church in Rome did not originally begin as a monarchical episcopate, whose “succession” got a bit mirky in the Avignon Pornocracy, many of whose Popes were entirely unfit for even the office of overseer according to Titus and 1 Timothy, and who can do little more than give weak eisegetical arguments for even the very concept of apostolic succession.
      Spare me.
      Being Reformed, he defines ‘Church’ as wherever the gospel is found, because the early Protestants defined the marks of the Church as including “the gospel,” where the gospel was determined by their own private interpretation of Scripture.
      I sure thought the Gospel was defined in 1 Corinthians 15. Devin is shadowboxing.
      So he claims that it is in the Church that the gospel is found, but he defines the Church in terms of the gospel. This is what we call a tautology
      A pox on Mathison for making the Gospel the central issue.
      how the Catholic hermeneutical paradigm differs from the Protestant one, just read Dr. Liccione’s blog post that I linked to above, a few paragraphs down is where the answer to your question is.
      Ah yes, the one where he fails to differentiate between how the “interpretive bridge” is different between these two cases?
      1) Inerrant Scriptural text —> fallible reader
      2) Infallible Magisterial proclamation (as if any of those exist) —> fallible bishop —> fallible priest —> fallible layperson such as Liccione or Devin Rose
      None too impressive, really. There’s a lot more “fallible”s in the Roman chain than in the Sola Scriptura chain.
      Peace,
      Rhology
    • Devin Rose says:
      Rhology,
      Our God-given reason can grasp certain truths. The Called to Communion guys demonstrated through reasoned arguments that sola reduces to solo with respect to ultimate interpretive authority. Hence it is not an opinion anymore than 2+2=4 is someone’s opinion. It is objectively true.
      Your tu quoques don’t work for the reasons mentioned by Dr. Liccione (see where he discusses how the ending points differ); this was also elaborated on at Called to Communion in their article the Tu Quoque: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/05/the-tu-quoque/
      If you wish to go any deeper in our discussion, you must first grasp the arguments being made in these articles.
      God bless,
      Devin
    • rhology says:
      Devin,
      The Called to Communion guys demonstrated through reasoned arguments that sola reduces to solo with respect to ultimate interpretive authority
      So that’s your outsider opinion. Thank you for expressing it. It’s wrong, however. No Sola Scripturist believes his interp of the Scripture is authoritative. Certainly he believes it is true until corrected by a better argument, but where are you getting this idea of authority?
      Hence it is not an opinion anymore than 2+2=4 is someone’s opinion. It is objectively true.
      Thanks for your opinion.
      Your tu quoques don’t work for the reasons mentioned by Dr. Liccione (see where he discusses how the ending points differ)
      Which tu quoque?
      I don’t think there is a problem with fallible interpretation. You do, but that’s YOUR problem, not mine. The tu quoque is in your own imagination, as you are improperly performing an external critique, thinking it’s internal.
    • rhology says:
      I note, BTW, that I have made numerous challenges and asked numerous questions, a great deal of which you have not addressed. If you wish to go any deeper in our discussion, you must first grasp the arguments being made in these comments of mine.
    • rhology says:
      Are we to take your word that the Called to Communion guys’ arguments have survived the thrashing Steve Hays, Jason Engwer, John Bugay, James White, and TurretinFan have given them at the same level of trustworthiness that we should take your comment “I’ll let this be my last comment on this thread“?
    • Devin Rose says:
      Rhology,
      There are only so many hours in the day. The points I raised get to the root of our differences rather than wasting time with ancillary or leaf issues. I did not intend to dodge anything you brought up but it’s impossible to focus on ten issues at once. Apologies if my comments have led to that happening. Ah, I see you linked to one post a long time back that Steve Hays did. Discussions with him are unfruitful; in one series of comments he refused to address me in the first person, as if I’m not a human being. Ugly and disrespectful. One of the Protestant guys commenting over at the gospel coalition post called him out on this.
      Yes, as I said I would, I did make my last comment on that particular thread and gave you the last word. You then began replying to a previous comment I had made to start a new thread. The other thread ended with you saying I was not a Christian. We’ll find out one day, won’t we? In the meantime, I will pray for you, that Jesus Christ the Lord will save you in His great mercy, as I hope He will save me.
      This is my last comment to you on this thread. I hope you will read those articles I linked to and prayerfully study them, so that you might enter the fullness of the truth and be blessed in every way Christ wishes to bless you.
      Devin
    • rhology says:
      The other thread ended with you saying I was not a Christian. We’ll find out one day, won’t we?
      That’s the point, actually.
      We don’t have to wait. Waiting until the final day is too late.
      Hebrews 9:27 – it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment.
      You are trusting in the wrong thing. Trust in Jesus – ALONE – for all of your merit. You have no excuse. You are convicted by the Law. Trust in Jesus’ grace alone through faith alone rather than partially in your own merit.
      I pray your eyes will be opened to see not only that you haven’t answered the main Sola Scriptura arguments but even more that you would love the Gospel.




Thread 3



rhology says:
the unity Christ prayed for was not organisational or institutional in nature, but rather spiritual, as God builds together the Body of Christ into spiritual union with Christ. Presumably, RCs and Eastern Orthodox do not accept this identification of the unity Christ prayed for, but rather insist that the unity is institutional and organisational in nature. Let us see whether their contention holds water.
1) It has been proven over and over again that this claimed unity within Eastern Orthodoxy and Rome does not exist in reality.
2) Our opponents criticise the Calvinistic doctrine of God’s preservation of His saints, once justified, as a violation of the free will of each person (not to mention other points of Calvinism, such as irresistible grace). Yet the very building of an institutional unity into a group of disparate and different people who have sinful tendencies, in order to bring an answer to the prayer of the Lord Jesus, would require “violation” of their free will. I mean, Protestants are creatures “blessed” with free will, and just look how organised they are, in their sin! (There are RCs who are more Augustinian and who are less; this would be an argument against the latter and against EO-dox.)
3) On that same topic, take a look at John 17:15 – “I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one.”
Isn’t it RC and EO dogma that God does not preserve His believers, but that they can in fact fall out of a state of grace? Didn’t Jesus’ prayer thus fail here (on RC and EO presuppositions)?
4) More pointedly, apparently the fact that we Sola Scripturists are not in communion with the RCC or the EOC is not an obstacle to our eventually landing in Heaven.
In short, we Sola Scripturists are, by virtue of RCC’s ex cathedra statement, united with Christ and thus on our way to Heaven (unless we commit a mortal sin, of course, but our Sola Scriptura convictions, refusal to participate in transsubstantiated Eucharistic suppers, and failure to join RCC are obviously not mortal sins, else they wouldn’t have talked about being united with Christ, etc).
Now, since we are united with Christ but not in communion with institutional RCC or EOC, since Christ prayed that His disciples would be united with Him, and since the RC and EO claim that Christ’s prayer for unity would certainly not fail to be granted, we can conclude that Christ’s prayer has either not yet been granted or that the unity He had in mind was not institutional / organisational unity. Either of these conclusions declaws the original (and old, tired) arguments Devin made.
  • Devin Rose says:
    Rhology,
    “the unity Christ prayed for was not organisational or institutional in nature, but rather spiritual, as God builds together the Body of Christ into spiritual union with Christ.”
    So saith Rhology. And it’s another false dichotomy. The unity is both (or all) of those things.
    Many (most?) Protestants are in some kind of ignorance, probably invincible, of what the Catholic Church actually teaches and know not what they are rejecting. Or they have biases so strongly ingrained in them they find it difficult to take the next step of faith and believe in the Church’s claims. God is merciful, thankfully (both for you and for me).
    God bless,
    Devin
  • BK says:
    “the unity Christ prayed for was not organisational or institutional in nature, but rather spiritual, as God builds together the Body of Christ into spiritual union with Christ”
    No, it is a visible unity. In the passage, Jesus calls for total unity of all believers for the explicit reason that the world might see the unity of believers and know that it comes from God. This aspect of the prayer doesn’t make sense of Jesus meant only a spiritual unity.
  • rhology says:
    If it’s both, and if institutional unity is a pre-requisite for being The Church Jesus Founded, why doesn’t RCC have institutional unity? Why is its institutional unity inferior to, say, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church?



Thread 4

Cassi says:
Right beside you in the water! I actually didn’t “come out” so to speak for some time, even though I knew what I was experiencing and what my decision would ultimately be, because while I am an excellent student, I am a horrible teacher! I knew I was not yet ready to articulate what I thoroughly understood. For me, the journey to Catholicism was a bit like looking all over the house for your keys, only to find them in the butter dish. :-D I was searching fruitlessly for a Christian denomination that held to the entire truth of Scripture–I never expected to find it in the Catholic Church! Why? Because what so many of us are taught about the Church simply isn’t the truth! For those of you who insist on believing in sola scriptura, let me ask you: Where did Scripture come from, and who decided which writings were scriptural, and which were simply good writings (or even bad)? The New Testament scriptures weren’t even finished being written (yes, that’s grammatically horrible, but it’s 2 a.m., a little slack, please) until around 70 A.D. The Bible’s “table of contents”, the Canon of Scripture, was not officially defined (by the Catholic Church) until the late fourth century! Did Christ really leave His Church floundering for that long with no clear direction? And if Catholicism and the Church is so flawed, how on earth do you know the Bible you have in your hand is infallible? If sola scriptura is the only way, how did people manage to be faithful Christians in the centuries when the majority of people were illiterate, and of the literate, only a few could afford to purchase any books? And most importantly, why does the Bible call the Church (not itself) the pillar and bulwark of truth? I doubt I’ll find my way back here, and I’m sure some of you more scholarly types will find a way to call me an idiot in terms I’d only half understand. :) But the fact is, history shows the Catholic Church to be the Church established by Christ and his Apostles. Take it or leave it; that’s your decision. Btw, Mr. Rose, I’ve read your book, If Protestantism is True. . . good job. :) I’ll be recommending it to those interested in better understanding my choice to convert.
  • Lee says:
    Cassi, you beautifully articulated my own experience as I have waded into, and am now swimming the Tiber. I have already been called apostate by a relative of mine and been accused of false motives for leaving my reformed ecclesial community. While I cannot argue my perspective with great sophistication, I have greater peace and more enthusiasm now than I have ever known in my life, and it is because I have encountered the Lord more profoundly within the Catholic Church than anywhere else. It is as though a piece-meal faith is now being fully filled in and given true continuity. I am so excited to be on this journey, and it is very encouraging to know that others are on it with me. Thanks, especially, to Tyler for putting himself out there as he and his wife move into communion with the Church.
    • rhology says:
      So, Lee, you think that you can partially merit the expiation of your sins? And you think that’s a better place to be?
    • David Meyer says:
      Tyler,
      Welcome aboard the good ship Benedict XVI. Its a rough ride but the only ship afloat. Hang on and enjoy the voyage. BTW, my blog has a similar name to yours.
      Rhology,
      You put words in Lee’s mouth. And your characterization of Catholic soteriology is about the most flame worthy straw man I have ever heard. Any goodness within us is a result of the Holy Spirits work. 100% He gets all the glory. Anyone who cares to look at the actual teaching of the Church can see for themselves.
      From the CCC:
      1992 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life:40
      But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus.41
      1993 Justification establishes cooperation between God’s grace and man’s freedom. On man’s part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent:
      When God touches man’s heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God’s grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God’s sight.42
    • rhology says:
      David Meyer,
      Hmm, so it’s a flameworthy strawman to say that the RCC repudiates sola fide?
      That’s a strange thing to say.
      You tried to prooftext it, and then even that attempt failed:
      Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith
      Baptism is a work. So… that would be precisely what I said, wouldn’t it?
    • Brock says:
      Rhology,
      It would depend on what you mean by “Sola Fide” (faith alone). If by Sola Fide, you mean Fide Formata Caritate (Faith formed by Love), then yes, the Catholic Church would agree with you. And Baptism is the work of the Holy Spirit…not the individual. But you knew that already, didn’t you?!
    • Devin Rose says:
      Amen, Brock. As Sacrosanctum Concilium says (paragraph 7): “By His power He is present in the sacraments, so that when a man baptizes it is really Christ Himself who baptizes.”
    • Brock says:
      Not sure that came across clearly. We would agree with a Protestant on Sola Fide IF what is meant by it is Fide formata Caritate. If by Sola Fide, you mean mental assent alone, then no, we would not agree. In fact, that is what the Church has denounced.
      PAX
    • Brock says:
      Exactly, Devin!!! ;-) Also, Rhology, either way you look at it, the Catholic Church is the one being consistent on justification…presenting both contextual agreement with the New Testament authors as well as historical agreement with them and the Church for 2000 years. AND that is, that Grace Alone saves. Faith and Charity (works) are necessary responses to that Grace. This is the consistent teaching of both Scripture and the Church for 2000 years. Simply put, no NT writer ever denounces the necessity of works in the Christian life. PERIOD!
    • rhology says:
      no NT writer ever denounces the necessity of works in the Christian life
      Whoever said anything about that?
      And baptism… you say it’s not a work? So…it’s faith?
      I mean, those are the two options – faith or work. It seems an awful lot more like a work than faith.
      You know, since it’s something you DO.
      What would stop me from assigning the word “faith” to other things? Circumcision, tithing, hospitality, abstinence from evil thoughts?
    • rhology says:
      By His power He is present in the Christian life, so that when a man exercises hospitality it is really Christ Himself who exercises hospitality.
      By His power He is present in the Christian life, so that when a man resists all sin it is really Christ Himself who resists all sin.
      Thus I could easily, by your own logic, say that perfect obedience is necessary to be justified.
      Or… you could embrace sola fide. That’s the choice.


Thread 5


Andre Lane says:
Simple word of caution, you should study and read Jude very closely and pray over it. Just to point out one thing i read in passage regarding dreams:
Jude 1:8
8 Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones.
  • Brock says:
    Hi Andre! I think you have certainly misapplied v. 8 in Jude, my friend. Interestingly enough, Jude in context with verse 8 is speaking about those who don’t live Christ-like and who, btw, reject authority. Now, what authority is being spoken of here? Clearly, the authority of the Church!!! V. 10-11, “But these men revile whatever they do not understand, and by those things that they know by instinct as irrational animals do, they are destroyed. Woe to them! For they walk in the way of Cain, and abandon themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam’s error, and perish in Ko’rah’s rebellion.” Here, Jude is referencing both Gen. 4:3-8; as well as Numbers 16, 22-24. What is interesting is this: if you go back and read Numbers 16, you will see that the “lay” people of the congregation were trying to usurp Moses and the ministerial priesthood…ultimately rejecting their authority. In fact they believe that they are “equal” to them and do not respect their ministerial offices derived from God.
    “Now Ko’rah…took men; and they rose up before Moses, with a number of the sons of Israel, two hundred and fifty leaders of the congregation, chosen from the assembly, well-known men; and they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said to them, ‘You have gone too far! For all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them; why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord’?…And Moses said to Korah, ‘Hear now, you sons of Levi: is it too small a thing for you that the God of Israel has separated you from the congregation of Israel, to bring you near to himself, to do service in the tabernacle of the Lord, and to stand before the congregation to minister to them; and that he has brought you near him, and all your brethren the sons of Levi with you? And would you seek the priesthood also? Therefore it is against the Lord that you and all your company have gathered together; what is Aaron that you murmur against him’?” For the sake of time, you may read the rest if you wish. But notice how God made it clear through Scripture that there is clearly a difference between the universal priesthood of believers, and his “Called” ministerial priests!!! ;-) And this was the New Testament understanding as well, which is why it tells us of the authority of the Church’s leaders…the Bishops, priests, and deacons. This is why we read the author of Hebrews exhorting the Church to “obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account” (Heb 13:17). This is what Jude is referencing, here. The rejection of authority…to put this letter in its historical context…was because there were sects rising up, and rejecting the bishops of the church…who clearly held authority!
    Peace!
    • rhology says:
      Brock,
      Jude in context with verse 8 is speaking about those who don’t live Christ-like and who, btw, reject authority. Now, what authority is being spoken of here? Clearly, the authority of the Church!!
      Eisegesis.
      if you go back and read Numbers 16, you will see that the “lay” people of the congregation were trying to usurp Moses and the ministerial priesthood
      Well, Moses and Aaron. Not “the ministerial priesthood”.
      And that was because God has chosen Moses to speak for Him. Nowadays, we have His Word, and those who rise up against it, denigrating it, include those who follow Rome. So you’re more like Korah.
      God made it clear through Scripture that there is clearly a difference between the universal priesthood of believers, and his “Called” ministerial priests!!
      You mean like in 1 Peter 2?
      4And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by men, but is choice and precious in the sight of God, 5you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
      You’re mistaken.
      this was the New Testament understanding as well, which is why it tells us of the authority of the Church’s leaders…the Bishops, priests, and deacons.
      Bishops/priests/overseers/elders are the same thing, and those are offices in the local church.
      Deacons don’t have any particular authority – they serve the church. You’re mistaken.
      This is why we read the author of Hebrews exhorting the Church to “obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account” (Heb 13:17).
      Sola Scripturists know this verse too. And I am in submission to my elders, a member of a local church.



Thread 6

Gabriel says:
Rhology said:
“The Romanist or Orthodox might object: “But we’re not in communion with those schismatics/heterodox/heretics!” Now, what if I were to reply, as a member of a Southern Baptist church, that, have no fear my non-Sola Scripturist friends, my church holds that everyone who’s not a member of a Southern Baptist church is a schismatic/heterodox/heretic too? Would that make our Romanist or Orthodox friends feel better?”
Rhology, the reality is that Christ established One Church, with One Teaching, with one Authority, coming from Christ Himself since He’s the Head. All Christian denominations can trace their roots to their founders. For example, Lutheranism is founded on Martin Luther’s teachings, Calvinism on the teachings of John Calvin, and all the other Christian denominations can be traced to their human founders. The problem with this is that they all claim to be teaching the truth, yet they teach different things. What they all have in common is that they were all founded by self-appointed freelance Bible interpreters. But Christ did not set up His Church that way. In fact, in Scripture we see how from the beginning we are warned about those who would come along and teach their own doctrines, and how there would be heresies and schisms. In fact, all heresies in the History of the Church have originated from individual members of the Catholic Church, such as Martin Luther, who was a Catholic priest.
To say that all are united in spirit is false, since all are not teaching the same things. Being that there is only One Truth, the True Church is the one teaching that One Truth. We see how in the very early Church, the group known as the Circumcisers began teaching their own ideas without authority from the Church. We read:
“And some coming down from Judea, taught the brethren: That except you be circumcised after the manner of Moses, you cannot be saved. ”
In response to these self-appointed teachers, the Church said:
“Forasmuch as we have heard, that some going out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls; to whom we gave no commandment: It hath seemed good to us, being assembled together, to choose out men, and to send them unto you, with our well beloved Barnabas and Paul”
  • rhology says:
    Hi Gabriel,
    the reality is that Christ established One Church, with One Teaching, with one Authority, coming from Christ Himself since He’s the Head
    OK, I can agree with that, no problem. Where it all breaks down for the Roman Catholic position is when one starts asking too many questions about how one knows that the modern RCC is that one Authority, rather than the Word of God.
    All Christian denominations can trace their roots to their founders.
    I am uninterested in this, as founders matter not at all. Truth matters, ultimately.
    The problem with this is that they all claim to be teaching the truth, yet they teach different things.
    Why is that a problem? Are you unfamiliar with the teachings of 1 Corinthians 11:17, Romans 14, and 1 Corinthians 8?
    What they all have in common is that they were all founded by self-appointed freelance Bible interpreters.
    Not self-appointed. The New Testament clearly teaches that every person is responsible for correctly handling God’s revelation of Himself.
    You’re not doing so, and as a result you’re asking the wrong questions. No wonder you’re getting the wrong answers.
    In fact, in Scripture we see how from the beginning we are warned about those who would come along and teach their own doctrines
    Like
    -Purgatory
    -apostolic succession
    -papal infallibility
    -transsubstantiation
    -indulgences
    -celibate priesthood
    -perpetual virginity of Mary
    -immaculate conception
    -Mary’s assumption into Heaven
    Yep, we sure do see that!
    To say that all are united in spirit is false, since all are not teaching the same things.
    You didn’t refute my argument; you just poo-poohed it. What is your argument?
    “And some coming down from Judea, taught the brethren: That except you be circumcised after the manner of Moses, you cannot be saved. ”

    In response to these self-appointed teachers, the Church said:
    1) Why do you think that this is not completely consistent with a Sola Scriptura framework?
    2) It’s ironic that you, someone who rejects justification by grace alone through faith alone, would cite disapprovingly those who were trying to add works to grace back in the apostolic days. Much like Rome does today.






6 comments:

threehappypenguins said...

I have a copy of the original post that Tyler made: http://covenantrpc.freehostia.com/misc/usswimteam.htm

threehappypenguins said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gabriel Serafin said...

Hello Rhoblogy, thanks for your response.

Where does the New Testament clearly teach that every person is responsible for correctly handling God’s revelation of Himself, and explain how this fits in with the fact that heretics in the history of the Church have always used Sacred Scripture to argue their teachings? Take for example the Arian heresy.

Arianism taught that Christ was a creature made by God using Sacred Scripture to support its claims. The Arian concept of Christ taught against the doctrine of the Holy STrinity by using the Gospel of John which quotes Jesus saying: “I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." (John 14:28)

Realize that defining doctrines using Scripture alone, apart from Sacred Tradition and legitimate Church authority, will simply end up in error. This is because anyone can rationalize any doctrine they want using the Scriptures. But Arianism was solemnly condemned by the Catholic Church in AD 325 at the First Council of Nicaea.

The thing that all heretics have in common is that they were all self-appointed freelance Bible interpreters who thought they were teaching the truth, when in fact they were merely leading souls astray.

The Catholic Church has always taught through both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture--BOTH--not just one or the other. We also see in Scripture, i.e. Acts 15 that the Church has the authority to define what is doctrine. It's not unto individuals like yourself. Take for example the heated argument Paul had with the Circumcisers, which led to the Council of Jerusalem.


As for Purgatory, and all the other subjects you enumerate, these can be backed up by both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. For instance your first topic. Jesus Christ mentions Purgatory a number of times. Jesus explained:

"Then the master called the servant in. 'You wicked servant,' he said, 'I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?' In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, UNTIL HE SHOULD PAY BACK all he owed. "THIS IS HOW MY HEAVENLY FATHER WILL TREAT EACH OF YOU unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart." --Matt. 18:32-35


Jesus warns:

"Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. Truly I tell you, you will not get out UNTIL YOU HAVE PAID BACK THE LAST PENNY."--Matt. 5:25


The idea of Purgatory is also in the Old Testament. One example of this is 2 Maccabees. Unfortunately for Protestants, your Bible is missing 7 books of the Old Testament because Protestants have put their faith in the teachings of a man named Martin Luther (who took it upon himself to dismiss 7 of the Old Testament books, and to denigrate the Epistle of James and the Book of Revelation)

As for apostolic succession, we have an example of this with Matthias replacing Judas. As for Papal infallibility, Cephas was a sinner yet he wrote inerrant Scripture; as for Transubstantiation, Christ Himself states: "Take ye and eat, THIS IS MY BODY." As for indulgences, the Church has the power to bind and to loose things in heaven and on earth. As for celibate priesthood, Christ called for it and Paul highly recommends it (The priesthood is a free choice which a man makes after 7 years of discernment). As for the perpetual virginity of Mary, she was the spouse of the Holy Spirit, and the Early Church Fathers teach that she was a perpetual virgin. As for the Immaculate Conception, if you read Genesis 3:15 God Himself promised to put enmity between the serpent and the woman who was to become the mother of the Savior.

The problem is that all you are doing is no different than Arius, who without Church authority and Sacred Tradition, took it upon himself to teach his own ideas..

Rhology said...

Hi Gabriel,

Sorry it has taken me so long to reply.

Where does the New Testament clearly teach that every person is responsible for correctly handling God’s revelation of Himself

Here.
Also
Matthew 22:31 - But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God:
Luke 6:3 - And Jesus answering them said, "Have you not even read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him,
Mark 12:10 - "Have you not even read this Scripture: 'THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone;
Matt 19:4 - And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
2 Tim 2:15 - 15Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.

Not to mention the complete absence of any NT institution that would remove that responsibility from the person.
I don't get it - what precisely are you getting at?




explain how this fits in with the fact that heretics in the history of the Church have always used Sacred Scripture to argue their teachings? Take for example the Arian heresy.

People misuse the Bible all the time. Does that mean the Bible can't be used correctly? Explain your reasoning.



Arianism taught that Christ was a creature made by God using Sacred Scripture to support its claims

Yes, by twisting it. Which twisting Athanasius identified...by use of Sacred Scripture.



The Arian concept of Christ taught against the doctrine of the Holy STrinity by using the Gospel of John which quotes Jesus saying: “I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." (John 14:28)

That's why God revealed more than one verse.



This is because anyone can rationalize any doctrine they want using the Scriptures.

Same thing applies about Roman Church proclamations.



The thing that all heretics have in common is that they were all self-appointed freelance Bible interpreters who thought they were teaching the truth, when in fact they were merely leading souls astray.

Not Pope Honorius.
Anyway, saying "self-appointed freelance Bible interpreters" is a Roman bugaboo that doesn't actually have any meaning. It's just supposed to create trepidation and a reaction in the reader.
God holds every person responsible for properly handling His Word and every individual has to interpret ALL communication that comes to him/her. That's just the facts.
I'd like to ask you to prove that these heretics did indeed think they were teaching the truth. That's not the NT picture of heretics - they are deceived partially, yes, but a great deal of that deception is self-deception and they are malicious and intentional evildoers.


The Catholic Church has always taught through both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture--BOTH--not just one or the other.

This is so vague as to be meaningless.



We also see in Scripture, i.e. Acts 15 that the Church has the authority to define what is doctrine.

1) Those were apostles. You're not.
2) The situation is pretty different today than in the church's infancy. There was no NT at the time, for example.
3) It's ironic that you point to the Scripture to argue against the Scripture's authority.

Rhology said...


It's not unto individuals like yourself.

This statement indicates you're a novice in this kind of debate. I recommend you do more reading and less talking.
I don't know of anyone who is claiming that individuals like myself have authority.
Seriously, rise above this level of discourse. It does no one any good.



"Then the master called the servant in. 'You wicked servant,' he said, 'I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?' In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, UNTIL HE SHOULD PAY BACK all he owed. "THIS IS HOW MY HEAVENLY FATHER WILL TREAT EACH OF YOU unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart." --Matt. 18:32-35
"Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. Truly I tell you, you will not get out UNTIL YOU HAVE PAID BACK THE LAST PENNY."--Matt. 5:25


Why would I think this is an indication of Purgtory and not Hell?
Please explain how you'd arrive at the doctrine of Purgatory by coming to this text with no presuppositions. How would honest exegesis draw Purgatory out?
Please explain how the concept of the individual sinner paying God back is consistent with NT teaching, especially Romans 4 and Romans 8. Is God bringing a charge against God's elect?
Please explain how your pitiful efforts can please God.



The idea of Purgatory is also in the Old Testament. One example of this is 2 Maccabees. Unfortunately for Protestants, your Bible is missing 7 books of the Old Testament because Protestants have put their faith in the teachings of a man named Martin Luther (who took it upon himself to dismiss 7 of the Old Testament books, and to denigrate the Epistle of James and the Book of Revelation

LOL. You're just full of the usual Catholic Answers lines.
You're wrong about James and Revelation.
I don't put my faith in Luther.
There was no set Canon of the OT at Luther's time. Trent decided to set one in the 1530s, well after the Reformation. Cardinal Cajetan rejected the Deuterocanonicals, to name one contemporary of Luther.
2 Maccabees doesn't teach Purgatory. I challenge you to provide exegesis of the passage that proves such.


As for apostolic succession, we have an example of this with Matthias replacing Judas.

Which fulfilled one specific prophecy. Please provide evidence that this practice continued, especially since Peter and Paul and John never mentioned anything of the kind in their latter epistles.



As for Papal infallibility, Cephas was a sinner yet he wrote inerrant Scripture;

1) Prove Peter was the Pope.
2) The same is true of other NT writers.
3) Why wouldn't I simply think that those who were inspired to write inerrant Scripture were recipients of God's special power to write it? Why should I believe in papal infallibility?
4) What about Pope Honorius?
5) What about Pope Sixtus?
6) Where is the NT teaching about this?
7) If the Pope is infallible, why have church councils?
8) If the Pope is infallible, why does he so infrequently use this charism?

Rhology said...


as for Transubstantiation, Christ Himself states: "Take ye and eat, THIS IS MY BODY."

How does this prove transsubstantiation? Why wouldn't the disciples have understood Him to be speaking figuratively, since He was sitting right there and holding up a piece of bread?
Are you aware that the doctrine of transsub is monophysite, resulting in your violation of the Council of Chalcedon?



As for indulgences, the Church has the power to bind and to loose things in heaven and on earth.

Flesh this out, please.


As for celibate priesthood, Christ called for it and Paul highly recommends it

Where did Christ call for it?
Why did Paul say that a presbuteros must be the husband of one wife?



As for the perpetual virginity of Mary, she was the spouse of the Holy Spirit

?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!!?!??!?!?!????!?!?!??!!?!?!??!?
Disgusting. Blasphemous. What a foolish thing to say. Please prove this repulsive assertion.


the Early Church Fathers teach that she was a perpetual virgin.

Why then does the NT say that Jesus had brothers and sisters?
Why does it say Joseph didn't know her UNTIL (heos hou in Greek) she gave birth to Jesus?
Why do you think Mary would have denied her husband proper and righteous conjugal rights? I thought you thought she was sinless.



As for the Immaculate Conception, if you read Genesis 3:15 God Himself promised to put enmity between the serpent and the woman who was to become the mother of the Savior.

What in the world does that have to do with the IC? Are you aware that the RC doctrine of the IC refers to MARY's birth and not Jesus'?


The problem is that all you are doing is no different than Arius, who without Church authority and Sacred Tradition, took it upon himself to teach his own ideas.

This statement contains no meaning.