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

Status
Not open for further replies.

ModernPuritan?

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

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

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

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

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

The time periods

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

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

sola fide
pope
Amil
Premil
sprinkle
immersion
paedo
creedo
 
You want proof for beliefs based solely on Scripture but no one can use Scripture to prove them?

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

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

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

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

so yes, historical backing
 
Jeff:

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

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

Can you give an example?
 
Jeff:

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

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

Can you give an example?

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

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

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

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

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

the next step would be to trace it like this

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

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

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

a consistent strain through history of like minded interpretations as your original one in this example : Condoms are acceptable.
 
Perhaps I'm the thick one, but I don't think his question is at all vague or odd. He's simply asking us to exhibit the historicity of our beliefs. If you believe X, since Paul admonished us to uphold the faith once delivered to the saints, show that your idea has been believed in Church history before, during, and after 1517, 1648, 1901, and 2008 (well, obviously not after 2008).
 
as far as reformed doctrines- TULIP

as far as protestant doctrines in particular- Sola Fide.

I guess this is in response to my papist friend who asserted that protestants have no historical verification for their interpretations until the reformation. I beileve we do- we should shouldnt we?? Surely someone back then beileved in SOla fide and eternal security?
 
Perhaps I'm the thick one, but I don't think his question is at all vague or odd. He's simply asking us to exhibit the historicity of our beliefs. If you believe X, and if Paul admonished us to uphold the faith once delivered to the saints, show that your idea has been believed in Church history before 1517, 1648, 1901, or 2008.



:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

exactly- some one can interpret what i wrote :P-- if in doubt what im after use the above quote from Davidius
 
as far as reformed doctrines- TULIP

as far as protestant doctrines in particular- Sola Fide.

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

Based on our premise of sola scriptura, it doesn't technically matter if anyone in the last 2000 years has agreed with us. If we can show that our view is scriptural, it doesn't matter what Irenaeus, Polycarp, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, or for that matter Luther, Calvin, and Owen thought.
 
but how do we know we are right then, with what authority can we really claim to be right.

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

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

but if we all do our best to faithfully interpret scripure yet arrive at differnt conclusion?
 
but how do we know we are right then, with what authority can we really claim to be right.

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

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

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

I don't know. It's a good question, one which I haven't seen answered without at least a small amount of question begging. I don't have an answer.
 
Since it's your thread, can we do the opposite? Instead of building a positive case, showing that "This writer taught Sola Fide", could we show where a specific writer spoke out against Sola Fide? Thinking of Polycarp here.
 
course there is then this article

Salvation from the Perspective

of the Early Church Fathers

By Chris Erickson
The disputes between Catholicism and Protestantism, as well as amidst the various Protestant traditions themselves, should, if nothing else, cause one to wonder what the earliest Christian communities thought on any subject being contested. What did those who learned their faith directly from the preaching of the Apostles themselves say regarding man’s salvation? For this, of course, we turn to the writings of these Early Church Fathers.

The writings of the Church Fathers respected Christian teachers of the early centuries recognized as special witnesses of the Christian Faith because of their antiquity, orthodoxy and personal sanctity allow us a glimpse into that early window of Christian life and thought.

The earliest Fathers were conversant with the apostles themselves, and therefore were unparalleled in their position to receive extensively accurate instruction in Christian Faith. One such person was an Eastern (Greek) Father, Polycarp of Smyrna (AD 69-156). Irenaeus of Lyons (AD 130-200) had this to say about Polycarp: "But Polycarp also was not only instructed by the apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also by the apostles in Asia appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried on earth a very long time…having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down…" (Against Heresies 3:3; AD 191).

What exactly did these first Christians believe and teach with regard to salvation? It is important to note that these Christian teachers of antiquity were not attempting to define precise theological points of doctrine; they were more concerned with general concepts, instructions, and admonitions for living the Christian faith in a time of often intense persecution. Therefore we won’t find the early Fathers engaged in dissecting a particular Pauline phrase in order to understand the Christian concept of justification. Moreover, such an approach would be foreign to the early Church since it can lead to misconceptions: "Those who are particular about words, and devote their time to them, miss the point of the whole picture" (Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, Bk. II, Ch. 1, AD 150-215).

Nonetheless, the Fathers of the Church had written on related matters concerning salvation, such as the role of faith and grace, the role of obedience, righteousness, baptism, etc. From these we can ascertain the mind and thought of the early Christian communities concerning salvation.

A common mistake often made is to misrepresent the Fathers by choosing selective quotations that bolster one’s own personal beliefs, discarding those that do not. It will hopefully be obvious to the reader that this study has avoided that error.

Clement of Rome (AD 96)

The earliest Christian document outside the New Testament writings comes to us from Clement of Rome: The Letter of the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth (commonly known as Clement’s First Letter). It was so highly esteemed in Christian antiquity that for a while it was even accepted as part of the canon of Scripture in Egypt and Syria. Many scholars believe Clement is identified as the Clement mentioned by Paul in Philippians 4:3. Regardless, Clement was the bishop of Rome at the close of the first century. He was familiar with St. Paul’s Epistles, and he certainly believed and taught that we are justified by faith:

And we, therefore…are not justified of ourselves or by our wisdom or insight or religious devotion or the holy deeds we have done from the heart, but by that faith by which almighty God has justified all men from the very beginning (ch. 32:4).

One might determine that Clement held a Reformed view of justification; however, Clement had more to say on the subject. In fact, it would lead future critics to say that Clement moved away from Pauline teaching toward ethical interests. Actually, Paul and Clement were saying the exact same thing. They both spoke of salvation in terms of requiring a comprehensive response on the part of the Christian: believing that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior and living a life of holiness. Hence Clement would not only write of being justified by faith, but he would also say:

We should clothe ourselves with concord, being humble, self-controlled, far removed from all gossiping and slandering, and justified by our deeds, not by words (ch. 30:3).

Is the reader led to conclude that there exists an inherent self-contradiction in Clement’s letter? Or was Clement promulgating the essential truth of the Gospel notwithstanding Paul’s teaching on the necessity of faith for salvation? Clement did not understand Paul to be offering an either/or proposition, but rather both/and. According to Paul sin and grace are entirely opposed. "For what participation has justice with injustice? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?" (2 Cor. 6:14).

It was an entirely new way of life that was required of the Christian to inherit God’s promises: faith and an inner conversion of the heart that would naturally show itself in good works of holiness. Clement believed that both Christ’s and Paul’s teaching held that if the latter is missing, the former is barren (cf. Mt. 7:21; Lk. 13:24; 1 Cor. 13:2; 15:1, 2; James 2:14ff).

Clement taught that the Christian moral life is imperative for salvation, that faith and obedience is what God considers righteousness. Clement points out that our actions—our good deeds prompted by faith—is what God reckons as righteousness: "Why was our father Abraham blessed?

Was it not because he acted in righteousness and truth, prompted by faith?" (ch.31:2-3). Clement further instructed the Church of Corinth that Abraham inherited God’s promises because of his (1) faith, (2) obedience and (3) hospitality:

It was obedience which led [Abraham] to quit his country, his kindred, and his father’s house, so that, by leaving a paltry country, a mean kindred, and an insignificant house, he might inherit God’s promises (ch. 10:2).

Because of [Abraham’s] faith and hospitality a son was granted to him in his old age (ch. 10:7).

Paul tells us that justification requires faith. Clement affirms that. But what does faith require? Paul says that faith requires (1) believing (cf. 1 Thes. 2:13; 2 Cor. 5:7), (2) obedience (cf. Rom. 1:5; 6:16), and (3) love [hospitality] (cf. Gal. 5:6), exactly what Clement said in Chapter 10 quoted above.

Paul and Clement accentuated the necessity of faith, that our salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ, and nothing we can do of our own accord (including holy deeds of the heart) apart from that faith will gain us our salvation. But they both taught that faith requires conversion that proves itself in Christian moral living, works of grace—fruits of the Holy Spirit working in us. St. Augustine would later remark that

Without love faith can indeed exist, but can be of no avail (De Trin. XV 18, 32).

Clement refers to several scriptural passages (Isa. 40:10; 62:11; Prov. 24:12; Rev. 22:12) to augment his plea to the Corinthians to persevere in doing good, which will eventually pay a reward:

We must, then, be eager to do good; for everything comes from Him. For he warns us: ..See, the Lord is coming. He is bringing his reward with him, to pay each one according to his work’ (ch. 34:2, 3).

What is this reward we are to receive, this pay according to our work? Eternal salvation. For what are we being paid—our works? Partially, yes, but correctly understood! It is "our" work only insofar as it is our cooperation with God’s grace as opposed to "the works of the Law." Hence it is God’s work in us manifesting itself in the fruits of the Holy Spirit that lead us to salvation, beginning with faith, supported by faith, and persevering in faith. (Matt 10:22; Trent, sess. 6, ch. 8;).

Protestant traditions have generally objected to that on the principle that it would result in God paying us the reward of salvation for something we do. It would therefore cease to be gratuitous.

However, Paul condemns those who make salvation a wage or salary as if we can buy our salvation through our own works or deeds apart from faith and God’s grace. Paul doesn’t condemn receiving a payment/reward as a filial inheritance from God for those who have faith working in love (cf. Gal. 5:6), for those who do God’s commands. This type of labor can only boast in God. Thus St. Augustine’s famous adage: "When God rewards my labors, He only crowns His own works in me."

Ignatius of Antioch (AD 35-107)

The writings of another Apostolic Father from the East, Ignatius of Antioch, are further testimony of how truly far back this teaching reaches. Ignatius tells us that along with baptism, faith and charity, our works will be our deposits to receive what is our due:

Let your baptism be ever your shield, your faith a helmet, your charity a spear, your patience a panoply. Let your works be deposits, so that you may receive the sum that is due you" (Letter to St. Polycarp, 6).

Is Ignatius telling us that we are due something from God? Our due is death as a result of sin. But what is our due after baptism, faith, charity and obedience to God’s will? Then, we are due God’s promises according to the conditions God set forth.

God did not have to offer us any conditional element. He did not have to offer us anything. It’s entirely gratuitous from beginning to end. His infinite love drove Him to put Himself in a position of "owing" something to man, if man would only love and obey Him. If we are to love Him, we must first believe in him (faith). And John 14:15 tells us that if we truly love Him, we will obey him (conversion, holiness, right living, good deeds, righteousness).

Ignatius was quoted above as saying, "let your works be deposits, so that you may receive the sum that is due you." He would also say:

Therefore, let us not be ungrateful for His kindness. For if He were to reward us according to our works, we would cease to be (Epistle to the Magnesians, Ch. 5).

Again, do we conclude that another Church Father is self-contradictory? Or do we acknowledge a distinction present in the early Christian communities between our own works (works of the Law) that lead us to boast in ourselves, and the works of God in us built upon an interior conversion that can only lead to our boasting in God alone. To abandon that truth leads every early Christian writer to appear self-contradictory, it poses an apparent disharmony between Paul and James, and consequently leads to a Reformed view of justification.

Ignatius’ letters were written while on his way to martyrdom, and he recognized the importance of our actions "motivated by faith, " as opposed to a "momentary act of professing" that faith:

Those who profess to be Christ’s will be recognized by their actions. For what matters is not a momentary act of professing, but being persistently motivated by faith (The Letter of Ignatius to the Ephesians, ch. 14:2).

This is a corollary to our Lord’s warning in Matthew 10:22: "But he who endures to the end will be saved."

Polycarp of Smyrna (AD 69-156)

Polycarp of Smyrna was an Eastern Father acquainted with Ignatius and well versed in Paul’s Epistles. In Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians, he says: "…knowing that ..you are saved by grace, not because of works’ (Eph. 2:5, 9, 9), namely, by the will of God through Jesus Christ" (ch. 1:3).

Polycarp affirms Pauline teaching, as did Clement and Ignatius. But he also affirmed the necessity of love, obedience and living a life of holiness. This is seen when Polycarp quotes St. Paul and then adds his own admonition, drawing from 1 John: "For ..he who raised him from the dead will raise us also’ (2 Cor. 4:14; 1 Cor. 6:14; Rom 8:11), if we do his will and follow his commandments, and love what he loved (1 John 4:11, 12), refraining from all wrongdoing" (ch. 2:2, 3).

Let us remember that Polycarp conversed with the apostles, sat at the feet of St. John as Irenaeus tells us, and that the apostles obviously thought him to be a man of outstanding repute since they did appoint him Bishop of Smyrna. It would, then, be safe to say that Polycarp did not depart from Pauline thought, but instead felt quite comfortable to quote Paul and add his own qualifier "if we do…" Polycarp must have believed this was harmonious with the full corpus of Paul’s teaching and that of the other apostles.

Polycarp taught that there were a number of moral commands to which the Christian must adhere in order to inherit the Kingdom. Faith without meeting these moral demands will not be enough. Polycarp argued that anyone occupied in these three things: growing in the faith, accompanied by hope, and led by love, has fulfilled the commandment of righteousness (ch. 3:2-3). Drawing from the Scriptures he would also say: "..Whenever you are able to do a kindness, do not put it off’ (Prov.3:28), because ..almsgiving frees from death’ [Tobit 4:10ff]" (ch. 10:2).

Justin Martyr (AD 100-165)

The Eastern Father Justin Martyr echoes the teaching of Ignatius insofar as he makes it clear that it is not those who "merely profess" Christ, but those who "do the works" the Saviour commanded that will be saved:

Those who are found not living as he taught should know that they are not really Christians, even if his teachings are on their lips, for he said that not those who merely profess but those who also do the works will be saved (cf. Matt. 13:42, 43; 7:15, 16, 19)" (The First Apology of Justin, ch.16).

Justin would also say that "Each man goes to everlasting punishment or salvation according to the value of his actions" (The First Apology of Justin, ch. 7). "The matters of our religion lie in works, not in words" (Hortatory Address to the Greeks, ch. 35).

Yet Justin also proves himself consistent with the other Fathers in affirming the necessity of faith: "For Abraham was declared by God to be righteous, not on account of circumcision, but on account of faith" (Dialogue with Trypho, ch. XCII).

Athenagoras (2nd Century AD)

Athenagoras, an Eastern Father, argues that Christians must live in a strict moral manner, because they must give an appropriate account of all their life in order to receive the reward of salvation:

But since we are persuaded that we must give an account of all our life here to God who made us and the world, we adopt a temperate, generous, despised way of life. For we think that, even if we lose our lives, we shall suffer here no evil to be compared with the reward we shall receive from the great Judge for a gentle, generous, and modest life (A Plea Regarding Christians by Athenagoras, ch.12).

Irenaeus (AD 130-200)

Irenaeus, a Western Father, in his writings, Against Heresies, Book I, confirms the necessity of a life of love and holiness, as well as keeping our Lord’s commandments in order to receive eternal life:

But to the righteous and holy, and those who have kept his commandments and have remained in his love…he will by his grace give life incorrupt, and will clothe them with eternal glory (ch.10:1).

It is the entire gamut of the Christian moral life, according to Irenaeus, that brings salvation.

Irenaeus criticized the Gnostics of being "devoid of sense" because "they keep silent with regard to His judgments and all those things which will come upon those who heard His words, but have not done them. For it would better for them if they had not been born" (Against Heresies, Bk. IV, ch. XXVIII).

Irenaeus believed that conversion was dependent upon Christ’s grace, and apart from that grace, man has no power to procure salvation. The more we receive that grace, the more we are obligated to love Christ:

No one, indeed while placed out of reach of our Lord’s benefits, has power to procure for himself the means of salvation. So the more we receive His grace, the more we should love Him (Against Heresies, Bk. IV, ch. XIII).

Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215)

Clement of Alexandria, an Eastern Father, will also speak of the necessity of believing and obeying if grace is to abound: "Rightly, then, to those who have believed and obey, grace will abound beyond measure" (Exhortation to the Heathen, ch. 5).

He presents "faith" as the first movement in a process that leads to salvation. That means more is required if we are to reach the goal of salvation:

We have discovered faith to be the first movement towards salvation. After faith, fear, hope, and repentance (accompanied by temperance and patience) lead us to love and knowledge (The Stromata, Bk. II, ch. VI).

Clement echoes the earlier Fathers, and we see a familiar teaching being handed down from the early Christians: 1) "..For by grace we are saved---but not, indeed, without good works…For this, we have the greatest need of divine grace…" (The Stromata, Bk. II, ch. I); and 2) "The same from the foundation of the world is each one who at different periods is saved, and will be saved by faith" (The Stromata, Bk. VI, ch, VI).

Clement is simply teaching what he received from the earlier Christians, that salvation will require faith and conversion. Inner conversion will show itself externally in a life of holiness; without that, faith is barren. All is necessary and all is only made possible through Christ’s grace.

A Cloud of Early Witnesses (AD 160-320)

Tertullian (AD 160-223), a Western Father, recognized the necessity of both faith and doing God’s will in order to be saved. He exhorts "those who are justified by faith in Christ, and not by the Law, to have peace with God" (Against Marcion, Bk. V, ch. XIII). And he also writes:

We make petition, then, that He supply us with the substance of His will and the capacity to do it--so that we may be saved both in the heaven and on earth (On Prayer, part III, ch. IV).

Theophilus (approx. AD 180), an Eastern Father, spoke of a life of doing well and obeying God’s command to procure salvation:

To those who by patient continuance in well-doing seek immortality, He will give eternal life everlasting life" (Theophilus to Autolycus, Bk. I, ch. XIII). "For man drew death upon himself by disobeying. So, by obeying the will of God, he who wants to can procure for himself life everlasting (Bk. II, ch. XXVII).

Origin (AD 184-254), another Easter Father, would speak about having communion and friendship with God only if, along with faith, we lived our life according to the teaching of Jesus: "It is those who not only believe, but also enter upon the life that Jesus taught" (Against Celcus, Bk. III, ch. XXVIII).

Cyprian (d. 258), a Western Father, did not think it was possible to have faith in Christ if you did not do what He commanded:

How can a man say that he believes in Christ, if he does not do what Christ commanded him to do? From where will he attain the reward of faith, if he will not keep the faith of the commandment? … He will make no advancement in his walk toward salvation, for he does not keep the truth of the way of salvation" (The Treatises of Cyprian, Treatise I, ch. II).

Cyprian believed that the righteous man is not only he who believes in God but he who lives in faith: "Assuredly, then, whoever believes in God and lives in faith is found righteous and is already blessed in faithful Abraham" (The Epistles of Cyprian, Epistle LXII, ch. IV). "Living in faith" to Cyprian was simply keeping the faith of the commandments, doing what Christ commanded.

Lactantius (AD 240-320), a Western Father, continues this same thought:

Labors that are endured and overcome all the way up until death, cannot fail to obtain a reward….And this reward can be nothing else but immortality (The Divine Institutes, Bk. III, ch. XII).

And again: "The spirit must earn immortality by the works of righteousness" (Bk. IV, ch. XXV).

Basil the Great (AD 329-379) Basil the Great, an Eastern Father, tells us of being "acceptable to God" through obeying the gospel, purging sins, and being active in good works:

He who would obey the gospel must first be purged of all defilement of the flesh and the spirit that so he may be acceptable to God in the good works of holiness (The Morals, 2, 1).

Speaking on penance, Basil believed that simply renouncing sins was not enough for salvation; rather, an act of penance was necessary as well:

Mere renouncement of sin is not sufficient for the salvation of penitents, but fruits worthy of penance are also required of them (The Morals, 1, 3).

Ambrose (AD 340-397) The writings of St. Ambrose, a Latin Father, would be very much akin to St. Paul. Ambrose taught that faith—not works that would lead one to boast—is necessary for salvation:

God chose that man should seek salvation by faith rather than by works, lest anyone should glory in his deeds and thereby incur sin (In Ps. 43 Enarr. 14).

Ambrose would also say: "Without the support of faith good works cannot stand" (On the Duties of the Clergy, 2, 7). That means that with the support of faith, good works can stand. If they can stand, then they certainly do not lead one to boast in himself, they do not lead one to sin. Ambrose has in mind a distinction here between "works" leading us to boast in God and "works" leading us to boast in ourselves. These latter works can never stand, with or without the support of faith.

Ambrose would also confirm the sentiments of Clement of Alexandria insofar as faith is the first movement in a process when Ambrose said: "Faith is the beginning of a Christian man" (Explanation of Psalm 118: 20, 56, 57). This implies that there is more to follow, since faith is not said to be the beginning, the middle and the end of the Christian man, as if there were no other obligations. Furthermore, the whole chapter of Psalm 118, which is what Ambrose is commenting on, is a treatise on faith, obedience and love.

John Chrysostom (AD 347-407) John Chrysostom, an Eastern Father, was very familiar with Pauline thought. In Chrysostom’s sermon on Ephesians 1:4-5, he asked why God chose us:

And why did [God] choose us? ..That we should be holy and blameless before him.’ So that you may not suppose, when you hear that he chose us, that faith alone is sufficient, he goes on to refer to manner of life. This, he says, is the reason and the purpose of his choice—that we should be holy and blameless… Being holy is a matter of sharing in faith; being blameless is a matter of living an irreproachable life (Homilies on Ephesians, 1, 1-2).

Augustine of Hippo (AD 354-430) St. Augustine, a Latin Father, taught that righteousness consists of doing good works:

How speedily are the prayers of people who do good works heard! For it is precisely in fasting, alms, deeds and prayer that our righteousness in this life consists (In Ps. 42 Enarr. I, 8).

But Augustine made the critical distinction that Paul made, that Luther refused to make:

We do the works, but God works in us the doing of the works (De Dono Perseverentiae, 13, 33).

I thought it was a good read... course, you provided more with that link, so ill consider it even :P
 
Okay, say I believe in baptismal regeneration, the primacy of one bishop over all others, and chiliasm....the early church has my back on all of these!


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

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

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

But all this really misses the point which is that:

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

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

3. Finally, read the canons of the Council of Trent, then read Vatican II and see for yourself whether the RC church can live up to the same "consistent-through-the-ages" challenge that he is asking you regarding Protestantism...especially in regard to who and what the true church consists of.
 
the last 2 non PB board folk i talked to, I came right out and said "Im dealing with a papist on the historicity of our interpretation vs theirs. can you recommend books?" He politely told my to bugger off.

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

so i figured, if i could hold out on mentioning "papist" that I would get, Honest, historical proof that our interpretation was atleast present at the same time theirs was.
 
I will check out that book, But id still like to trace things through history as that (before the papist) was a little project of mine anyway.
 
the last 2 non PB board folk i talked to, I came right out and said "Im dealing with a papist on the historicity of our interpretation vs theirs. can you recommend books?" He politely told my to bugger off.

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

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

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

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

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

so, if yall know of well written books dealing with church history, beileves during that time (0-5/600) please pass them along.
 
Zwingli's Answer to the Papal Historians of his day...

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---------

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

non bloody sacrifice part

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

Clement

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

Ignatius of Antioch

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

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

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

Transubstantiation part

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

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

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

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

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



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

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