Friday, July 24, 2015

Church Fathers

(This is intended as a companion piece to Dustin Germain's excellent article.)

People everywhere within Christendom want to claim the "Church Fathers" as supporters of their own position. Eastern Orthodox cite Chrysostom against Rome, which counter-cites (sometimes-imaginary quotes from) Augustine, whom Protestants then cite against Rome, who then counter-cites Irenæus, who then gets claimed by the Eastern Orthodox... on and on it goes.

For the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, it's understandable that they do this, for a few reasons. One is that their concept of spiritual authority is pretty murky and leaves room for "Church Fathers" to hold sway in persuading people. If Basil of Cæsarea believed it, well, who am I to question such a Great Man? Another is that for a great deal of the distinctive doctrines of Rome and the East, there is no legitimate or remotely convincing biblical proof, so really all they have are quotes from church history and naked appeals to their own authority.

But for the adherent to Sola Scriptura, the usage of the appellation "Church Father" is puzzling and unnecessary and should be jettisoned. Further, Sola Scripturists ought to take great care in how they cite "Church Fathers", for what reason, and in which context. Let's explore this more.

First of all, the word "Father" has to do with generation and origin, parenthood. In no way are any of the men usually referred to as "Church Fathers" actually fathers of The Church. The Father of The Church is God the Father. The Founder of The Church is Jesus Christ. He who inducts people into The Church is the Holy Spirit.
Jesus handpicked men who would be the first preachers of His Church. Their names are recorded in the Gospel accounts and Acts. There are twelve of them, give or take one.
"And He went up on the mountain and summoned those whom He Himself wanted, and they came to Him. And He appointed twelve, so that they would be with Him and that He could send them out to preach, and to have authority to cast out the demons. And He appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom He gave the name Peter), and James, the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James (to them He gave the name Boanerges, which means, “Sons of Thunder”); and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Zealot..."
--Mark 3:13-18

Throw in Paul and maybe Matthias, subtract Judas, and you have your human Church Fathers.

Second, there is no reason for confidence that we in modern times, so far removed from the context in which these "Church Fathers" lived, taught, and wrote, have sufficient understanding of their writings. Here are some challenges to hubristic overestimation of what can be gleaned for our use today from their extant writings:
You don't know that what these guys said is what most Christians of their time believed.
You don't know how many Christians of their time would have agreed.
You don't know how what they wrote was received by other churches. Any mere claims to "we believe thus" are not necessarily true. Not without proof, and  more proof than their say-so.
You don't know whether they were held in the highest respect by their contemporaries.  Maybe you're reading the Charles Stanley of their time - not really all that bad in certain ways, but pretty bad in others, and quite shallow compared to other people, most of the time. Maybe you're reading Joseph Prince, a lesser-known heretic. It could be anyone. Point is, you don't know (and neither do I).
You don't know whether you have all their writings.
You don't even know what percentage their today-extant writings constitute of the total things they wrote over their lifetime.
Thus you don't know if they ever took it all, or part of it, back, in a book or letter that has since not (yet) become widely known to have been recovered.
You don't know whether what they said in public or in private teachings actually comports with the extant writings you have.
You don't know whether the names we usually assign to these writings are correct. In the case of writings where the name is included in the text, you don't know whether it's pseudonymous.

These are just some of the challenges that must arise when critically assessing how much we can learn from these writings. It is of course acceptable to say "this is what we have to work with, and when I cite, say, Chrysostom, it's generally assumed I am referring to his extant writings." Yes, quite so, that's fine, as long as the discussion in which you cite them centers around "What do Chrysostom's extant writings say?" and do not ascribe too much authority or certainty that you have good answers to the above challenges. Because, let's face it - you do not.

Third, your beliefs are not identical to any given "CF". Which means that any implication their writings are authoritative in some way is disingenuous, for if you really thought that, you'd believe it consistently. But you don't; rather you pick and choose because you think you have good reason to reject the beliefs you reject. Which means that "CF" is not your father at all, nor is he authoritative. Something (or someone) else is the authority, for it has judged that particular belief from that individual "CF" to be false. Let's be clear - they were fallible men, to my knowledge never claiming to be infallible, and they made mistakes.

So, why do people call them "Church Fathers" at all? Seems to me a traditional nomenclature that fails to take the above into consideration, fails to think through the divide between what any of them believed and what anyone in modern times believes, whether Sola Scripturist, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or otherwise, and has served as a useful tool for you, so you decided to keep it. And I think I know why - it is useful. Selectively citing these men and then slapping the label "Father" on it sounds so imperial, so high-fallootin', so mysteriously powerful, that often it causes a brain block within the mind of the listener. I myself have experienced this many times (before, by God's grace, I grew out of it).

Now, to be clear, the same brain-blocking phenomenon occurs today when you attribute a quote to other Great Men as well, modern "heroes of the faith" and such. For some, it's Spurgeon. For some, MacArthur. For others, Bahnsen. It doesn't matter whom; the point is that none of the writings or speech of Bahnsen or Spurgeon appears in the pages of the Bible. At a moment of lucidity, none of those men would claim the level of self-abiding authority many people today would apply to them, and usually neither would those breathless followers either, at least not explicitly, not out loud. It merely shows in their actions, the way they cite MacArthur instead of Scripture, the way they refuse to attempt to interact with the Scripture when on the table is the credibility of a position MacArthur holds.
This is a human problem, not unique to Sola Scripturists or these well-known Reformed teacher men. The point is that Sola Scripturists must rise above this faulty thinking, and take every thought captive to make it obedient to Christ, not your favorite Sunday lecturer.

Is this overzealous, unreasonably radical skepticism? Depends on whom you're asking, I suppose (although the honest answer is: No way).
What this illustrates for certain is that our certain guide, our certain lamp for our feet, is the Scripture. The Scripture is simply not subject to these kinds of questions (at least not within Christendom) (atheists need to prove the outside world exists first, which is a tough ask) (liberals need to prove that their own communication isn't demolished by the deconstructionist attacks to which they subject the text of Scripture), for we all accept its authority and sourcing - it is the very Word of God.

Such is demonstrably not the case for "Church Fathers", however. They are not God's speech. They are not breathed out by God. We are to read them like we read DA Carson today - to understand who they are, what they taught, and their theological contexts. They are not authorities. Neither you nor I think so. They (and I, or Billy Graham, or Jonathan Edwards) have power and truth only insofar as they repeat the Word of God. Where they do so, let us praise God for the insight they have shared. Where they have not, let us learn not to repeat their mistakes.

The only sense in which they are "Fathers" is that they are older and came before us. But other men we don't consider "Fathers" also precede our time.

Nobody invests them with great authority - not Sola Scripturists, not RCC, and not EOC.
Sola Scripturists - obviously. And how can we know when they spoke truth or error? By assessing their arguments on the merits. To the Scripture we must go!

And please spare me the "Solo Scriptura" objection. None of this means nor is intended to communicate that the "CF"s' extant writings are unhelpful or without merit or that we shouldn't listen to anyone else. Read what I said, not what you want me to say.

But for us who love and follow Jesus and believe His words in Mark 7:1-13 wherein He told us to test traditions by Scripture, our Church Fathers are named: Jesus, Mark, Luke, Paul, Peter and John and the rest of the 11, James, Jude, and the guy who wrote Hebrews. Do you want to know what the earliest church believed? Read the New Testament.

18 comments:

Michael Coughlin said...

Some good points. Thanks for sharing. I think you nailed a couple nails on the head, although I'd challenge you (if you haven't) to contact someone like Nate Busenitz who is a real "expert" on church history to see if we really don't know the answers to the questions at the beginning in all cases. I think in some cases we have degrees of confidence which can be measured. (but I don't know) - I'm just not taking your word for it any more than I'd say you are wrong. I'm not a historian. I sorta do like you said, I read them like I read a guy today, even your blog, to get to know your thoughts which are edifying and maybe sometimes wrong (like my own).

Ricardo said...

I don´t think you understand the catholic/orthodox argument here. We do not believe that any Church Father is infallible (individually). We do believe that the Church as a whole, the entire Church, is infallible - which sounds reasonable if you read Matthew 16:18 and 28:20, Ephesians 4:11-14, 1 Timothy 3:15. So we read the writings of the Church Fathers, together with the Councils and ancient Liturgies, to know more of what the Church has believed and taught in her history, how she has interpreted Scriptures, etc. So, the real authority of the Fathers is in their testimony of the truth in all ages. I´m sorry, but your article does sound like individualism and despise of history. I suggest you to read Hebrews 13:7.

Ricardo said...

"The only sense in which they are "Fathers" is that they are older and came before us".

The Fathers first collected the canon of New Testament (something not even the Apostles had done), then they established many other churches (just like Paul did and this make him a "father": 1 Corinthians 4:15), then they established the most important Creeds of our faith that even the protestant confessions have maintained (Nicea, Constantinople). I´m think that is sufficient to call them "Fathers" of the Church, just like the Apostles and Evangelists before them were also "Fathers" for them and for us.

Rhology said...

We do not believe that any Church Father is infallible (individually)

I know. :-)
I *have* noticed, however, that y'all don't always speak consistently with that stated beliefs. If you really thought that consistently, you wouldn't respond to biblical arguments with "But ___Church 'Father' X___ said..."


We do believe that the Church as a whole, the entire Church, is infallible - which sounds reasonable if you read Matthew 16:18 and 28:20, Ephesians 4:11-14, 1 Timothy 3:15.

That's not reasonable at all.
1) Matt 16 is about Peter and his faith.
2) Matthew 28 is about making disciples, a command.
3) Eph 4 is about the make-up of local churches.
4) 1 Tim 3:15 is talking about the local church of which Timothy was a part.

And besides that, when does THE ENTIRE CHURCH say anything? At best you have Ecum Councils, which were attended by men who didn't always properly represent what their congregants, who were just as much part of The Church as the bishops, believed. And those men were not ALL the bishops even. So I don't even know what it means to say "The Church is infallible". The NT knows nothing of some huge institution like modern Rome or EOxy. Nothing.


So we read the writings of the Church Fathers, together with the Councils and ancient Liturgies, to know more of what the Church has believed and taught in her history

I presume you can answer my challenge questions in the post, then?


the real authority of the Fathers is in their testimony of the truth in all ages.

Could you please explain more fully what you mean by that?


I´m sorry, but your article does sound like individualism and despise of history

I hope you'll read it again more carefully.


The Fathers first collected the canon of New Testament

No they didn't. Paul and Peter and all those guys were dead before the NT was fully written. (Except possibly John.)


then they established many other churches (just like Paul did and this make him a "father": 1 Corinthians 4:15)

You're twisting Scripture. Paul fathered the church in Corinth (and quite a few others), so he said he was their spiritual father. And he was an apostle and helped get The Church going in a foundational way. That's what a father is and does. Those other men don't qualify.


then they established the most important Creeds of our faith

Dang, how late are you saying "Church Fathers" can be named?

I don't see how you've really replied to the substance of my article, at any rate. But I've noticed that humans will hold blindly to their tradition no matter how many times they are refuted. RCCs and EOx are no exceptions.

Ricardo said...

1) Matt 16 is about Peter and his faith.

Jesus said: "... upon this rock I will build my Church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it". How can it be NOT about the Church and only about Peter and his faith?

2) Matthew 28 is about making disciples, a command.

Jesus said: "... make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world".

The first part is a command, but the second ("I am with you always") is clearly a promise.

3) Eph 4 is about the make-up of local churches.

Paul said: "There is one Body, and one Spirit, even as also ye were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism". This is clearly about the universal Church, because there are many local churches, but only one Church universal.

Paul proceeds saying that Christ "gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers". Why? For what purpose? "For the perfecting of the saints, unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of the body of Christ... that we may be no longer children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, in craftiness, after the wiles of error". This text says nothing about God´s preservation of His people in truth for you?

4) 1 Tim 3:15 is talking about the local church of which Timothy was a part.

That may be true, but you (or other protestants) would never call your local church by that kind of title. Probably because you recognise that your local church is not representative of a broader (universal) Church that is preserved by God.

5) The NT knows nothing of some huge institution like modern Rome or EOxy. Nothing.

It is not about some "huge institution". It is about the Church as described in Ephesians 4. The mere sum of various "denominations" cannot be that Church, because they can´t reach consensus on the most basic things. They don´t have "one baptism", for example. Some (baptists) baptize again member os the others (presbyterians). Some believe that baptism is an instrumento of regeneration (lutherans) while others think this is blasphemy. That is why more traditional lutherans refuse to be part of the "denominational system". They are more coherent.

Ricardo said...

Sorry about my english, it may sound strange. What i´m trying to say is: your eclesiology is wrong, it doesn´t reflect Ephesians 4 or any other os those texts. That´s why you despise reading the Fathers - although you´re going to deny it. But Paul said:

"Remember them that had the rule over you, men that spake unto you the word of God; and considering the issue of their life, imitate their faith" (Heb 13).

I don´t think you understand the gravity of this issue: denominationalism.

And what Paul said about he being a spiritual father ("For though ye have ten thousand tutors in Christ, yet [have ye] not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I begat you through the gospel") perfectly applies to the Church Fathers or any other minister. He says nothing about being an apostle in this passage, but only about begetting through the gospel.

Ricardo said...

In fact, the kind of argument I´m making is not alien to protestantism. Look at what Luther said in his Large Catechism in favor of baptism of infants:

"That the Baptism of infants is pleasing to Christ is sufficiently proved from His own work, namely, that God sanctifies many of them who have been thus baptized, and has given them the Holy Ghost; and that there are yet many even to-day in whom we perceive that they have the Holy Ghost both because of their doctrine and life; as it is also given to us by the grace of God that we can explain the Scriptures and come to the knowledge of Christ, which is impossible without the Holy Ghost. But if God did not accept the baptism of infants, He would not give the Holy Ghost nor any of His gifts to any of them; in short, during this long time unto this day no man upon earth could have been a Christian. Now, since God confirms Baptism by the gifts of His Holy Ghost, as is plainly perceptible in some of the church fathers, as St. Bernard, Gerson, John Hus, and others, who were baptized in infancy, and since the holy Christian Church cannot perish until the end of the world, they must acknowledge that such infant baptism is pleasing to God. For He can never be opposed to Himself, or support falsehood and wickedness, or for its promotion impart His grace and Spirit. This is indeed the best and strongest proof for the simple-minded and unlearned. For they shall not take from us or overthrow this article: I believe a holy Christian Church, the communion of saints."

Amem to Luther.

Rhology said...

Almost no extant ancient Christian writers thought Matt 16 referred to the Church. Most thought "this rock" is either Peter's faith/confession or Jesus Himself.
And how do you get to "The Church is infallible" from that verse? Please show your exegesis.

Yes, "I am with you" is a promise. How do you get to "The Church is infallible" from that verse? Please show your exegesis.


This is clearly about the universal Church, because there are many local churches, but only one Church universal.

Yes, I'd agree with you about that.


This text says nothing about God´s preservation of His people in truth for you?

How do you get to "The Church is infallible" from that verse? Please show your exegesis.
And besides that, plenty of individuals, individual local churches, and groups of churches have fallen into serious error. The Ephesians themselves had done that.


That may be true, but you (or other protestants) would never call your local church by that kind of title

Where you see a title, probably because of your Rome-colored glasses, I see a description.
And sure, I have no problem saying that about my local church. The Bible says it, so I'll repeat it!


Probably because you recognise that your local church is not representative of a broader (universal) Church that is preserved by God.

But it is, and I do.


It is not about some "huge institution". It is about the Church as described in Ephesians 4.

You and I both know you're being disingenuous here.


The mere sum of various "denominations" cannot be that Church

Of course it isn't. The Church is all the redeemed people of God wherever they may be.


They don´t have "one baptism", for example

Sure they do. It's just that not all of them are correct in their view of it.
It's not like all RCs or EOx agree on baptism either! Or "one Lord", as the Catechism of the CC is itself pluralistic and liberalism is rank all thru each of those two institutions. "One faith", when you have major internal divisions and have spent most of your history squabbling and even warring between the two and/or internally? You'd have to be ignorant of history, either willfully or otherwise, to think these things you're saying.


Rhology said...

That´s why you despise reading the Fathers - although you´re going to deny it

You're either RC or EO, which is why you molest children on a daily basis - although you're going to deny it.


I don´t think you understand the gravity of this issue: denominationalism.

I think I do, but of course may God help me ever progress in wisdom and understanding as I need it.
What you don't seem to understand is that denominations and worse exist in the RC and EO camps as well, but for disingenuous purposes they are plastered over for the most part. No real agreement actually exists throughout those churches. It's all a sham. It's institutional, devoted to the continued existence of the insitution for its own sake rather than for laboring with each other for the sake of actual truth, and rather than accepting and affirming that disunity actually exists so that it may be repented of, y'all lie about it and pretend like it's all good. That's why y'all dishonestly point to "33,000 denominations" and all that stuff - you're waving your hands and trying to divert attention away from the fact that you have the same problems.

But as I've said before, compare apples to apples. My own local church against yours. Or EOxy as a whole against, say, the Southern Baptist Convention (of which I'm not a part, by the way). Or Sola Ecclesia against Sola Scriptura. Those are fair comparisons.

Check this out for more help.

He says nothing about being an apostle in this passage, but only about begetting through the gospel.

Nothing you've said overturns my point or strengthens your point.


the kind of argument I´m making is not alien to protestantism. Look at what Luther said in his Large Catechism in favor of baptism of infants:

Please tell me why you quoted Luther. What do you think I'm going to say in response?

Ricardo said...

I know that EO and RC churches doesn´t have perfect unity. First, there are a lot a people in their communities that do not sincerily follow their teachings. Second, even among the sincere people there are differences of opinions and disputes.

Does this contradict what I said before about the unity of faith in the Church according to Ephesians 4 and other passages of Scripture? Does it make EO and RC churches just like the sum of denominations of protestantism?

Absolutely not! Look at what Augustine said when he was treating specifically the subject of baptism:

"... we should believe with pious faith what the universal Church maintains, apart from the sacrilege of schism. And yet, if within the Church different men still held different opinions on the point... For at that time, BEFORE THE CONSENT OF THE WHOLE CHURCH had declared authoritatively, by the decree of a plenary Council, what practice should be followed in this matter, it seemed to him [Cyprian], in common with about eighty of his fellow bishops of the African churches, that every man who had been baptized outside the communion of the Catholic Church should, on joining the Church, be baptized anew".

( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/14081.htm )

So, we do have disagreements. But they are either a) made by people who clearly does not want to follow the teachings of the Church or b) made before there was a clear and authoritative manifestation of the Church on the issue. Augustine distinguishes two moments: one BEFORE that manifestation, and other AFTER it. The problem is that protestantism doesn´t have any of it. In protestantism, everything is, in principle, capacle of revision. For example, it doesn´t matter if the Church has practiced infant baptism for centuries and centuries without protest. If some people think it is unbiblical, they will get rid of it.

It is impossible to achieve real Church unity in the protestant system. Look at what Spurgeon - a great english baptist preacher you probably listen frequently - said about baptismal regeneration:

"... for of all lies which have dragged millions down to hell, I look upon this as being one of the most atrocious—that in a Protestant Church there should be found those who swear that baptism saves the soul. Call a man a Baptist, or a Presbyterian, or a Dissenter, or a Churchman, that is nothing to me—if he says that baptism saves the soul, out upon him, out upon him, he states what God never taught, what the Bible never laid down, and what ought never to be maintained by men who profess that the Bible, and the whole Bible, is the religion of Protestants".

So, baptismal regeneration is the most atrocious lie. A lie that "dragged millions down to hell" (!!!!). This is common in baptist circles. You´re a baptist, right?

Ricardo said...

Let´s see what Luther has to say about it. Not only he believed FIRMLY in baptismal regeneration, he even said it is the "heart of the Gospel" and, because of that, said Zwinglius was a "non-christian". Zwinglius was that guy who said that "all the doctors have been in error from the time of the apostle" on baptism.

So, what one part of protestantims held in the most SACRED place, the other part say is sacrilege and heresy. This is not the Church described in Ephesians 4. This is not the Church as St. Irenaeus described in passages like this:

"For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church, and every kind of grace; but the Spirit is truth. Those, therefore, who do not partake of Him, are neither nourished into life from the mother's breasts, nor do they enjoy that most limpid fountain which issues from the body of Christ; but they dig for themselves broken cisterns [Jeremiah 2:13] out of earthly trenches, and drink putrid water out of the mire, fleeing from the faith of the Church lest they be convicted; and rejecting the Spirit, that they may not be instructed.

(...) Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, [looking upon them] either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth.

(...) True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, 2 Corinthians 8:1; 1 Corinthians 13 which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God]."

Ricardo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ricardo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ricardo said...

Or this passage from Augustine:

"The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house."

Your type of protestantism (non-lutheran protestantism) cannot even affirm to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. This is not the unity as described in John 17 or Ephesians 4. You can point all the problems in EO and RC churches, but they are not the same thing as the divisions of protestantism.

Again, sorry about my english. =/ I can see it is poorly written.

This will be my last post. Unfortunately, I cannot continue to participate because of lack of time. You can make the final comments. I will read, but not respond. I´m sorry if my tone was too harsh. I actually am very sympathetic to christians from protestant communities. Thank you.

Rhology said...

I know that EO and RC churches doesn´t have perfect unity.

But that's a major anti-Sola Scriptura argument used by tons of RCs and EOx. Glad to see you don't follow them into that foolishness.


Does this contradict what I said before about the unity of faith in the Church according to Ephesians 4 and other passages of Scripture?

It depends, and that's the crux of the matter. If it does for Sola Scripturists, then it does for RCs and EOx. If not for RCs and EOx, then it doesn't for SS, for it's the same situation everywhere. It's the human condition.


Does it make EO and RC churches just like the sum of denominations of protestantism?

You're comparing apples to oranges.
Don't do that.


But they are either a) made by people who clearly does not want to follow the teachings of the Church

Ditto with my church. So what's the problem? The problem is you're not being fair and not comparing apples with apples.


b) made before there was a clear and authoritative manifestation of the Church on the issue

LOL
Look, either God said it or He didn't.
This is as anti-Scripture as it gets.


For example, it doesn´t matter if the Church has practiced infant baptism for centuries and centuries without protest. If some people think it is unbiblical, they will get rid of it.

Quite so. See Mark 7:1-13.


It is impossible to achieve real Church unity in the protestant system

It's just as possible as in the Roman system. Seriously, please do some reading.


Look at what Spurgeon - a great english baptist preacher you probably listen frequently - said about baptismal regeneration:

"You probably listen to frequently" - look at how you assumed all these things about me. You don't know anything about me, but you feel free to exercise your biased prejudice. It's like Romanists can't help it. Happens all the time. Get out of your tiny little box and see the world, Ricardo.

And Spurgeon was 99% right in that (if he'd said "...baptism justifies the man" then he would've been 100% right). All we have to do is read the Bible to find precisely that. Look at Romans 11:6 and Romans 4:4-8. Baptism is a work. This isn't rocket surgery.



baptismal regeneration is the most atrocious lie.

Eh? That's not even what Spurgeon said.
He said "I look upon this as being ***one of the*** most atrocious"

No wonder you're part of the RCC. You probably read the Bible as well as you read Spurgeon or early Christian writers.


You´re a baptist, right?

No.
A credobaptist. Those are not the same.

Rhology said...


Let´s see what Luther has to say about it

Drat, if only I'd ever engaged some knowledgeable Lutherans on this very topic.


This is not the Church described in Ephesians 4. This is not the Church as St. Irenaeus described in passages like this:

You're quite right. Luther was wrong, and he should have repented and agreed with Zwingli in his view of baptism, and been unified in the truth.
But you conveniently ignore all the times that professing Romanists have excomm'd each other and disagreed. And that's because you're not allowing yourself to be honest.


"The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority

That's a pretty lame and ridiculous thing to say.
For one thing, that consent doesn't actually exist unless the only people you look at are the group in whose inclusion you're trying to justify, which is begging the question.
Moreover, the Gospel and the Holy Spirit are what actually make and keep people part of The Church.


The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter

Which succession is imaginary, by the way.


to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate

So He did, but there's nothing in there about extrapolating such a thing to any successors.


And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.

This argument is so vacuous that it merits no reply.


Your type of protestantism (non-lutheran protestantism) cannot even affirm to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed

Why not? I affirm it.


I´m sorry if my tone was too harsh.

It's not your tone but rather your ignorance for which you should be apologising.

The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvka said...

People everywhere within Christendom want to claim the "Church Fathers" as supporters of their own position.

Indeed they do... How to tell the difference between them, is that what you're asking ? In a story I read as a child, coming from the Orient, a rich man goes on a long trip. Along the way, he meets a poor beggar, and his heart is moved to compassion. He switches clothes with him, and lets him ride his horse. As they reach the nearest city, after traveling together for a while, he asks the man for his clothes and horse back. But -lo and behold!- the "poor beggar" immediately starts shouting that he's their rightful owner, and the people seize the rich man, who is wearing the poor man's dirty clothes, and bring him before the judge, who was quite famous for his wisdom. There are other parties there, such as a butcher and an olive-oil maker, fighting over a sum of money, each man claiming it as its own. When their turn comes, the judge brings them to a stable full of horses, among which the one they disputed was also present. He told them to identify him. The rich man did, but so did the conman. The next day they presented themselves before the judge to pass a sentence. The judge restored the horse and clothes back to their rightful owner, and sentenced the usurper. After the day was over, the rich man, now in full possession of his belongings, waited for the judge, and asked him how he knew that he, and not the impersonator, was the true owner. The judge told him that, though they were both able to correctly identify the horse, when the rich man approached him, the animal was glad, peaceful, and serene; but when the other man touched him, he became troubled and disturbed. (In other words, the judge wanted to see which man the horse recognizes as master, and not what horse the two men recognize as their own). The rich man was pleased by the answer, and marveled at his wisdom, then he again inquired about the case of the two men arguing about the sum of money. The judge replied that he asked them for their money, and dipped the coins in water. If they were to have belonged to the butcher, a small quantity of blood would have descended to the bottom of the vessel, turning the liquid red. If, on the other hand, they would have belonged to the olive merchant, then a faint crust of oil would have formed at the top of the bowl, since the two don't mix, and the latter is lighter than water...

PeaceByJesus said...

(Resuscitating a sleeping blog post) the link to "Dustin Germain's excellent article" does not find it.

And to add to the rebuke of,

We do believe that the Church as a whole, the entire Church, is infallible - which sounds reasonable if you read Matthew 16:18 and 28:20, Ephesians 4:11-14, 1 Timothy 3:15.

None is these texts promise, require or infer ensured magisterial infallibility of office. Magisterial authority and promises of God's presence, preservation, and providence of Truth and are not new, but none of which promise, require or infer said infallibility. \

The OT magisterial office certainly had authority, (Dt. 16:18 ;2Ch 19:5-10) with dissent from that of the priests being a capital offense, (Dt. 17:8-13) and the Lord enjoined conditional obedience to those who sat in the seat of Moses, (Mt. 23:2) And OT judicial power of binding and loosing power corresponds to Mt. 18:15-18 (though as spiritual power this is provided for all believers of holy fervent Elijah-type faith: Ja, 5:16-18).

And God promised Israel that He would be with them and preserve them, if they did not forsake Him, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23; 2Chron 7:12-20) and charged them with teaching His Law, (Dt. 33:10) even as to dealing with leprosy according as the Levites were instructed, (Dt. 24:8) and who charged to keep the charge of the sanctuary. (Nu, 3:32)

Yet this did not require ensured infallibility of office, but God often preserved faith by raising up men from without the magisterium to correct it. And thus the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed,

And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

In contrast under the Roman model then itinerant preachers who are without sanction by the historical magisterium are to be rejected, as is their reproof based upon the weight of scriptural substantiation.

Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. (John 7:45-49)