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

[ModernPuritan?]

Mary

1) Marry, ever virgin

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

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

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

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

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

2) Mary, Mother of God

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perpetual Virginity

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

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

The Immaculate Conception

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

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

Assumption

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

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

Honor to Mary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ulrich Zwingli:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Louis], Volume 4, 694.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ModernPuritan?]

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

 

[ModernPuritan?]

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

Sola Fide,
Sola SCripture.

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

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

SAINT JOHN CHRYSOSTOM on Justification-Salvation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[christianyouth]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

 

[Pilgrim]

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.

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

 

[Pilgrim]

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

Sola Fide,
Sola SCripture.

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

 

[Davidius]

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ModernPuritan?]

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

assume Catholicism is right for a min.

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