Why Scripture and the Facts of History Compel Me to Remain a Committed Evangelical Protestant

Christian Resources ^ | William Webster

[boatbums]

I’ve read with interest Francis (Frank) Beckwith’s book, Return to Rome, because like him, I was baptized and raised Roman Catholic, attending parochial schools through my primary grades and a preparatory school run by a Benedictine monastery throughout my high school years. And, like Dr. Beckwith, in my teens I turned away from the Roman Catholic Church and Christianity altogether but was converted in my early twenties and began attending a Protestant Evangelical church. And for the past thirty seven years I have been a committed Evangelical Protestant. I was also quite interested in reading Dr. Beckwith’s book because he had been President of the Evangelical Theological Society at the time of his decision to revert to the Church of Rome and I was intrigued to learn the reasons that had formed his decision. After reading his book it became clear to me that Beckwith’s decision to return to Rome was based on his conviction that the Protestant Evangelical church is deficient on two important points. He is convinced that the Roman Catholic Church can claim historical validation for being the one true church established by Christ and that the Evangelical church is therefore a schismatic movement. He believes the Roman Church is the ultimate authority established by Jesus and that her teachings are therefore authoritative. He says:

Unless I capriciously cherry-picked the Catholic tradition, I could not justifiably accept the Early Church’s recognition and fixation of the canon of scripture—and its correct determination and promulgation of the central doctrines of God and Christ (at Nicea and Chalcedon)—while rejecting the Church’s sacramental life as awell as its findings about its own apostolic nature and authority. I was boxed into a corner, with the only exit being a door to a confessional. At this point, I thought, if I reject the Catholic Church, there is good reason for me to believe I am rejecting the Church that Christ himself established. That’s not a risk I was willing to take…It occurred to me that the burden was on me, and not on the Catholic Church, to show why I should remain in the schism with the Church in which my parents baptized me, even as I could think of no incorrigible reason to remain in the schism.1

And secondly, and more importantly, he believes the Protestant Evangelical faith is deficient biblically with respect to its overall teaching on the gospel, justification and salvation. It is the subject of justification and salvation that Beckwith devotes most of his attention to in his book. He says:

…it is the Reformation notion of imputed righteousness that, ironically, puts the Reformers partially in the Pelagian camp. This is because the Reformers and Pelagians agree that God’s infused grace is not necessary for justification…For me, all things considered, the Catholic view has more explanatory power than the Protestant view. This is why it made sense to me that the Early Church Fathers…were so Catholic in their teachings. They held to a view that, I believe, does the best job of accounting for all the New Testament’s passages on justification and sanctification.2

And so, being convinced that the distinctive Roman Catholic dogmas can be historically validated and that Rome’s salvation teachings are fully consistent with Scripture, Beckwith has issued a challenge to Evangelicals to give serious consideration to the claims of Rome and reconsider their commitment to their Protestant faith and the legitimacy of the Reformation and to follow him into the embrace of Roman Catholicism:

Thus, there is a heavy burden on the part of Reformed writers to show that the ascendancy in the sixteenth century of a Reformation thinking that had no ecclesiastical predecessors may be attributed to a return to the true understanding of Christianity.3

Dr. Beckwith quotes approvingly from Carl Trueman, Professor of Historical Theology and Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary, from his review of Noll and Nystrom’s book, Is the Reformation Over? Frank personally italicizes his comments for emphasis, as a clear challenge to Evangelicals:

When I finished reading the book, I have to confess that I agreed with the authors, in that it does indeed seem that the Reformation is over for large tracts of evangelicalism; yet the authors themselves do not draw the obvious conclusion from their own arguments. Every year I tell my Reformation history class that Roman Catholicism is, at least in the West, the default position. Rome has a better claim to historical continuity and institutional unity than any Protestant denomination, let alone the strange hybrid that is evangelicalism; in the light of these facts, therefore, we need good, solid reasons for not being Catholic; not being a Catholic should, in others words, be a positive act of will and commitment, something we need to get out of bed determined to do each and every day. It would seem, however, that if Noll and Nystrom are correct, many who call themselves evangelical really lack any good reason for such an act of will; and the obvious conclusion, therefore, should be that they do the decent thing and rejoin the Roman Catholic Church…(emphasis added).4

And then in these comments, by implication, he is challenging evangelicals to consider that they have no legitimate reasons to remain in what he calls “schism” with the Church of Rome:

Professor Trueman’s reasoning would serve as a catalyst for reorienting my sense of whether the Catholic Church or I had the burden in justifying the schism in which I had remained for over thirty years…I could think of no incorrigible reason to remain in the schism.5

Now, I take such a challenge seriously. I have asked myself the same questions that Beckwith himself asked and over the years through the challenge of Roman Catholic apologists such as Karl Keating, Scott Hahn, Patrick Madrid and others, I have been motivated to study and research the pertinent doctrinal and historical issues related to Roman Catholicism and the Reformation covering the general subject of authority and salvation. I have sincerely sought to answer the question, Can the teachings and claims of the Roman Catholic Church be validated biblically and historically? Is this Church truly the one true Church established by Jesus Christ? That study has been going on now for more than twenty five years and I remain a committed Evangelical Protestant precisely because of the truth of Scripture and the facts of history. This study has resulted in the writing of several books on the gospel and particular historical issues related to the history of the development of doctrine and the writings of the Church fathers on subjects such as the authority of scripture, the canon, the papacy and the Marian dogmas. In this research I have been able to bring to light much information that had previously been unavailable in the English language in the writings of the church fathers. So I have approached the reading of Return to Rome with great interest indeed. After reading the book, I must say that my overall reaction was one of deep sadness and disappointment. Frank Beckwith is winsome, obviously very bright and seemingly very sincere. But his arguments historically and biblically in support of Rome and which form the basis of his decision to embrace that church are unconvincing. Historically, Beckwith demonstrates a superficial understanding of the church fathers. There are a great many historical facts that he is either ignorant of or has chosen to turn a blind eye to. Ignorance can forgiven to some degree because he himself admits that he had no training and very little exposure to the writings of the church fathers. He says he gave only about three months of study to their writings prior to his decision to revert to Rome. And from the references he gives in his book it would seem that this study was under the direction of Roman Catholic apologists who are well known for proof–texting the writings of the church fathers giving anachronistic meaning to their writings that was foreign to what they actually say. For example, Roman Catholic apologists see the term tradition in the writings of the fathers and immediately import a present day Roman Catholic understanding to the term that the church fathers did not embrace. Or they will read a church father extolling the person and position of the apostle of Peter and immediately jump to the conclusion that such appellations apply to the bishops of Rome in support of the dogma of the papacy when the fathers themselves never make such an association in their writings. This approach applies to numerous examples that Beckwith references in his book such as prayers to the dead, confession and the doctrine of the Real Presence. Beckwith titles the section on historical doctrine, I Hear the Ancient Footsteps, in which he seeks to defend distinctive Roman Catholic teachings historically. I can personally say, that after twenty five years of research, as opposed to three months, that I also hear ancient footsteps and they do not point in the direction of the present day Roman Catholic Church and its dogmatic teachings. The fact of the matter is, Rome has added dogmas to the ancient rule of faith that was supported by the unanimous consent of the fathers and which was grounded in the written Scriptures. Dogmas which can find no warrant either in Scripture or the tradition of the church, and which in some cases completely contradict the ancient tradition of the Church, and which the Roman Catholic Church declares are necessary for salvation. But the most serious problem with Dr. Beckwith’s book and the one that caused me such disappointment is his caricature of the Reformed Evangelical faith in its teachings on salvation and secondly his assertions regarding the official teachings of Roman Catholicism on justification and salvation. He claims to have a thorough understanding of the teaching of the Reformed faith. He says:

To be sure, I was fully aware how Protestant theologians made their case, and I was capable of following their reasoning. But I no longer found their case convincing.6

Throughout his book Beckwith makes confident assertions about the salvation teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and he is convinced that these teachings are much more consistent, as was pointed out above, with Scripture than those of the Protestant Evangelical and Reformed faith. As a Reformed Evangelical and former Roman Catholic I have thoroughly read and studied all the official Roman Catholic documents on salvation including the Council of Trent, Vatican One, Vatican Two, The Catechism of the Catholic Church as well as papal decrees and official catechisms and the writings of Ludwig Ott. Having read Beckwith’s book, I am appalled at the blatant misrepresentation of both the Reformed teaching as well the teaching of Roman Catholicism. His lack of knowledge on historical issues is forgivable, given his ignorance, but to misrepresent and caricature the Reformed faith and to misrepresent the salvation teachings of Rome is simply irresponsible and dishonest. In this presentation I want to deal with a number of historical issues related to doctrine and dogmas that Beckwith alludes to that impinge upon the subject of the authority and the nature of the church and then address in a summary fashion the issues related to the gospel and salvation for that subject will be taken up in much greater detail by others.

Authority

The subject of authority is foundational to an understanding of Roman Catholicism and directly impinges on the issues of the gospel and salvation in two ways. Firstly, in that the authority claims of Rome, which involve the teachings on the papacy, scripture and tradition and the canon, have been elevated to the level of dogma by Rome. What this means is that these teachings embody essential doctrines which define the meaning of saving faith. That is, unless a person fully submits to and embraces them he does not possess saving faith and he cannot be justified. Vatican I, for example, states that it is necessary for salvation that men and women not only believe all that is revealed in scripture but also everything which is defined and proposed by the Church as having been divinely revealed. To reject anything taught by the Roman Church is to reject saving faith and to forfeit justification and eternal life:

Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed. And since, without faith, it is impossible to please God, and to attain to the fellowship of his children, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will any one obtain eternal life unless he shall have persevered in faith unto the end.7

Roman Catholic theologian, Ludwig Ott, explains the relationship of Dogmas defined by the Church and faith in these words:

By dogma in the strict sense is understood a truth immediately (formally) revealed by God which has been proposed by the Teaching Authority of the Church to be believed as such...All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God written or handed down and which are proposed for our belief by the Church either in a solemn definition or in its ordinary and universal authoritative teaching. (Vatican I). Two factors or elements may be distinguished in the concept of dogma:

A) An immediate Divine Revelation of the particular Dogma...i.e., the Dogma must be immediately revealed by God either explicitly (explicite) or inclusively (implicite), and therefore be contained in the sources of Revelation (Holy Writ or Tradition) B) The Promulgation of the Dogma by the Teaching Authority of the Church (propositio Ecclesiae). This implies, not merely the promulgation of the Truth, but also the obligation on the part of the Faithful of believing the Truth. This promulgation by the Church may be either in an extraordinary manner through a solemn decision of faith made by the Pope or a General Council (Iudicium solemns) or through the ordinary and general teaching power of the Church (Magisterium ordinarium et universale). The latter may be found easily in the catechisms issued by the Bishops.

Dogma in its strict signification is the object of both Divine Faith (Fides Divina) and Catholic Faith (Fides Catholica); it is the object of the Divine Faith...by reason of its Divine Revelation; it is the object of Catholic Faith...on account of its infallible doctrinal definition by the Church. If a baptised person deliberately denies or doubts a dogma properly so-called, he is guilty of the sin of heresy (Codex Iuris Canonici 1325, Par. 2), and automatically becomes subject to the punishment of excommunication (Codex Iuris Canonici 2314, Par. I). As far as the content of justifying faith is concerned, the so-called fiducial faith does not suffice. What is demanded is theological or dogmatic faith (confessional faith) which consists in the firm acceptance of the Divine truths of Revelation, on the authority of God Revealing...According to the testimony of Holy Writ, faith and indeed dogmatic faith, is the indispensable prerequisite for the achieving of eternal salvation (emphasis added).8

This kind of teaching should give great pause to anyone considering conversion to Roman Catholicism. This Church is claiming the authority to bind men’s souls eternally by the promulgation of doctrines such as he Assumption of Mary that have neither scriptural nor traditional support based solely on her own supposed authority. Certainly there are many, many Roman Catholics who though they have never been formally excommunicated are nonetheless informally in that state since they do doubt and even deny certain dogmas and are thereby guilty of heresy. Secondly, the authority claims of Rome impinge on the issues of the gospel and salvation because she claims to be an infallible interpreter of Scripture as the one true church established by Christ and therefore whatever she authoritatively decrees is infallible. Thus, whatever Rome teaches regarding the gospel and salvation is infallible, divine truth.

Ultimate Authority and Historical Claims to Be the One True Church Beckwith states that he is convinced that the Church of Rome is the one true church established by Jesus Christ. This, of course, is the claim of the Roman Church herself. And that claim is set forth by both allusions to and expositions of Scripture and by appeals to historical practice and the writings of the church fathers. The question is, Do the Scriptures, the facts of history and the writings of the church fathers support the Roman Catholic claims for authority in her teachings of papal rule and infallibility and her claims to the one true church? The papal teachings which are foundational for Roman Catholic authority were given dogmatic definition by the First Vatican Council in 1870 where that Council asserted its claims for papal primacy and papal infallibility. This was the first instance of the teaching of papal infallibility being dogmatically defined but the teaching of papal primacy was dogmatized many centuries previous to Vatican I in 1302 by Pope Boniface VIII in his Bull, Unam Sanctam. So with regard to papal primacy and rule Vatican I is simply reaffirming a dogma that had been decreed by the bishop of Rome some five hundred and eighty years previous. Unam Sanctam states:

And this body he called one body, that is, the Church, because of the single bridegroom, the unity of the faith, the sacraments, and the love of the Church. She is that seamless shirt of the Lord which was not rent but was allotted by the casting of lots. Therefore, this one and single Church has one head and not two heads—for had she two heads, she would be a monster—that is, Christ and Christ’s vicar, Peter and Peter’s successor. For the Lord said unto Peter, ‘Feed my sheep.’ ‘My,’ he said, speaking generally and not particularly, ‘these and those,’ by which it is to be understood that all the sheep are committed unto him. So, when the Greeks and others say that they were not committed to the care of Peter and his successors, they must confess that they are not of Christ’s sheep, even as the Lord says in John, ‘There is one fold and one shepherd’…Furthermore, that every human creature is subject to the Roman pontiff,—this we declare, say, define, and pronounce to be altogether necessary to salvation.9

Vatican I set forth its teachings on the basis of the exposition of three major passages of Scripture related to the apostle Peter, Matthew 16:18-19, John 21:15-17 and Luke 22:32. It also reconfirmed the teachings of the Council of Trent in the 16th century and the principle defined by Trent of authoritative interpretation and the ‘unanimous consent of the fathers’. This principle states that the Roman Church alone has the authority to interepret Scripture and that it is illegitimate to interpret Scripture that contradicts what it calls the ‘unanimous consent of the fathers’. Trent states:

Furthermore, to check unbridled spirits, it decrees that no one relying on his own judgment shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions, presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge their true sense and interpretation, has held and holds, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, even though such interpretations should never at any time be published.10

Of the three passages of Scripture used to support Roman Catholic ecclesiology, the most important is Matthew 16:16-19:

And Simon Peter answered and said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ And Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven’

The basic Roman interpretation of this passage is that the rock refers to Peter leading to the conclusion that the Church of Christ is built upon him personally. The keys represent his authority to rule the church and to define truth. And since it says that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church that she will be infallible in what she teaches and proclaims. Additionally, it is stated that in this passage Christ is establishing successors to Peter in the bishops of Rome who were given authority to rule the Church universal until He returns. Vatican One states that very the very beginning of the establishment of the Church this doctrine was understood and believed including Vatican One’s exegesis of the Petrine passages. But neither biblically nor historically in the practice of the church or in the patristic interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16:18 does one find an affirmation of these teachings. Vatican I is in fact guilty of contradicting the very principle it reconfirmed from the Council of Trent of never interpreting Scripture in any way contrary to the ‘unanimous consent of the fathers’. We will examine the biblical arguments and then the historical.

[JCBreckenridge]

You said you wanted facts and evidence - that’s a fact.

First list with all the books on your list, OT and NT is Erasmus, in the 16th century. It took 16 centuries for the Church (which wasn’t Catholic!) to finally get it right.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

“You..

---

Looks like YOU are punting on my direct challenge. Ergo, you can’t meet it, and are now actively begging me to restate what has been stated dozens of times, in the vain hope you’ll string me along with your red herrings and no-nothing assertions until we forget about it. Go ahead and indulge in whatever victory fantasies you enjoy. I’ll not repeat myself any further unless you produce evidence for “Pope” Gregory’s excommunication for not holding the apocrypha to be inspired.

That’s it! Finished! Finito! No more messing with the troll!

[JCBreckenridge]

If you believe that St. Athanasius is authoritative, why are you not Catholic?

Is he only authoritative on this one issue?

[Cvengr]

His Word does not depend upon the Church.

[FourtySeven]

To this, must be reference to developmental theory(?), a proposal along the lines of Newman terming it an "unpacking" of what is claimed to have been there all along?

Yes.

This letter is interesting. Is it the same one you have been using earlier in support of the notion there was not only confusion about the office of the "Apostolic See", but also direct opposition to such a concept? For the purposes of the remainder of this post I will assume your answer to that question is "yes".

Indeed, when I read that letter, I reach the exact opposite conclusion. I read it, basically, as Pope Gregory the Great admonishing the head of a recognized ecclesiastical "Fraternity" for trying to assert as much authority as his (Gregory's) office demands. Therefore, this is why we read Gregory using such language and warning against the pride of the enemy.

Also, briefly, it matters not that the title "Pope" was used to describe bishops earlier in Church history, as one of your own sources (correctly) points out, the term "pope" derives from the Latin papa meaning merely "father". As all bishops are priests, the term fits, and is only reserved for the Holy Father today merely because of tradition (note my intentional use of the lowercase "T"), and nothing more. Indeed today, in Romance languages such as Italian, the Pope is still refered to as "Papa".

Like you, I do not wish to debate this point further, because of weariness on my part too but also because I feel quite confident an average, open minded lurker who is so interested would reach the same conclusion as I, after reading the letter in question. You and I will simply have to "agree to disagree" on this matter, at least at this time.

Thank you for your cordial reply. May God bless you as well.

[daniel1212]

“1. contrary to the idea that i argued celibacy was a doctrinal requirement, i specified this was only “church law “ (canon law) and changeable.”

Which is what the Catholic church teaches. Your error is not in what you assert being contrary to the Church your error is attributing to the Church what she does not teach.

There simply is no error except by your own perception or contsruance. I am the one who first focused on Rome and then first documented the distinctions btwn the Latin and Byzantine rite on this while showing both have celibacy requirements. 2.

“2. contrary to the assertion that that celibacy is not a requirement at all”

It’s not a requirement to ordination either in the Byzantine rite or in the Latin rite. Converted clerics don’t have to divorce their wife once regularized, even in the Latin rite.

Again, you are misrepresenting my argument and then charging a contradiction. Where did i say celibacy was an absolute requirement for the priesthood of Rome or for EO priests? Instead i stated Rome required celibacy almost for all while the EOs did so for bishops and unmarried priests after ordination and remarriage for widowed priests.

“3. contrary to different titles for classes of pastors and titled priests, in Scripture bishops are elders and elders are bishops, the distinctive hierarchical titles being a latter development”

I would contest this. The disciples came first. The disciples being apostles and bishops came before there ever was a priest. The distinction between the two would come up at the first council in Jerusalem and well within the first century. Assertions that the ‘threefold structure’ did not exist in scripture is not only contrary to acts, but is evidence of reading into the text what is not there. You may believe this - the text does not support it.

Not so; there simply is no use of hiereus for either the apostles and bishops being a class of priests distinctive from the general priesthood of the laity, and while there is a distinction in office btwn apostles and bishops, there is no distinction btwn bishops and elders. In Acts 15 the bishops are elders, just as in Acts 20.

Your own NAB notes on Titus 1:5-7 admit, "In Ti 1:5, 7 and Acts 20:17, 28, the terms episkopos and presbyteros (“bishop” and “presbyter”) refer to the same persons."

"...ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:..."For a bishop must be blameless..." (Titus 1:5,7)

Assertions that the ‘threefold structure’ of apostles and bishops and elders existed in scripture is not only contrary to Acts, but is evidence of reading into the text what is not there. You may believe this - the text does not support it.

“4. contrary to your assumption, i myself did not argue for married priests ‘so married men don’t feel excluded’.”

You go on to argue, “but they make excellent preachers”. Either you believe that the church would benefit (which is a utilitarian ethos, or that you believe the exclusion is unwarranted, which need I elaborate is a bad basis to base canon law on the self-esteem of the recipient.

That quote from me simply does not exist, nor does arguing for married priests from me based on the self-esteem of the recipient, which i agree is not valid reasoning (but you asked for input from Orthodox sources). Nor does allowing for some single men being pastors warrant that being the norm.

5. “Rome and the EO have differences in celibacy requirements.”

It’s not a requirement. Again. It’s a discipline. Words are important because misuse of words is what is tripping you up here.

Rather than me being tripped up, it is you who is engaging in semantics in trying to find a contradiction that does nor exist. It is a requirement, a disciplinary rule (canon law ), and rather than me doing the tripping up, again, i made it clear that this was not dogma but changeable law, as well as there being differences within Catholicism on celibacy.

“6. contrary to your blanket assertion otherwise, the Catholic church does have celibacy requirements.”

No, it does not. The Latin Rite has a discipline. The Byzantine Rite has a different one. The Catholic church has a continence requirement which is doctrinal and does not very across the rites, and the Catholic church has a celibacy discipline which does vary across the rites.

Talk about being tripped up. It is impossible to not have celibacy requirements when a disciplinary rule forbids married men from becoming priests unless they are married converts, or that forbids unmarried or widowed men after ordination to marry. While you want to deny this is being a requirement, it is, even if not unchangeable as doctrine.

“9. contrary to your assertions, the text does not actually say “but one wife, but simply “one wife, and “mia” is not always restricted to one, nonetheless contrary to your charge that i cannot accept the interpretation that “one wife” is forbidding polygamy, i can, but that the husband requirement goes beyond this.”

Ordaining a husband requires one to be married first then ordained. If you’re asserting a marriage requirement - this would actually rule out marrying after ordination altogether.

Ordaining a husband does not rule out marrying after ordination unless no single persons can be ordained, which is not being argued as absolute, but from the beginning it was that, rather than requiring most all pastors to have the gift of celibacy, the norm is that they were married..

There’s nothing in scripture that permits marriage after ordination. Nothing at all. You say this is what the Church ought to do and teach - you should be able to provide some evidence for this from scripture.

You ignored the case of the two single apostles, (1Cor. 9:5) which after becoming apostles had freedom to take a wife. Paul was already a sovereignly called apostle yet asserted he had freedom to have a wife like the other apostles did, though he chose not to, like as he chose not to support himself, though that was not always the case.

Meanwhile, there’s nothing in scripture that forbids marriage after ordination. Nothing at all. If you say this is what the Church ought to do and teach, then you should be able to provide some evidence for this from Scripture - if warrant from Scripture was actually necessary.

“nowhere does he see fit to detail how single men should be likewise proven to be able governors.”

Yet you argue an ordained man should be allowed to marry. This is a paradox and demonstrates that your position is logically untenable.

Not so, you as contrary to your perception, my argument was not that there is no record of single men being pastors and absolute exclusion of them, but that the requirements do not mention single men, and there are only two know single pastors, thus excluding it from being the norm. It is your objection against married men being the norm that is untenable in the light of all the evidence.

“were the norm”

I asked you to prove to me where scripture uses the word ‘norm’ anywhere. Does it use the word? No? Then why are you reading into the text something that the text does not say?

I address your argument behind it, and this attempt to find some charge is also absurd. Do you really hold that an explicit statement is required for something to be true? Would you say that in the light of the fact that manifestly single men are rare in the OT in contrast to married men, then is it wrong to state that it was the norm for men to have been married in the OT because there that word is not used, and thus one is reading this into the text???

Likewise when Scripture only records two pastors as being clearly single, and only married men are mentioned in qualifications, then the warranted conclusion is that married pastors was the norm

The Bible also does not explicitly state the Holy Spirit is the 3rd person of a Triune God, but that is that a valid conclusion based on statements that are made. And RCs go well beyond this in extrapolating support for such things as the sinlessness, perpetual virginity and bodily assumption of Mary.

Meanwhile it is you who asserted that the word "but" was part of 1 Tim. 3:2, when it is not there, though it is a reasonable rendering.

“but the case of widowed pastors.”

That’s a separate question. This is an excellent question. Canon law states that a widower may become a priest, as the sacrament of marriage no longer applies. The widower may not remarry after becoming a priest. Continence is required, virginity is not.

I did not one say celibacy meant virginity, or that a widower may not become a priest.

Snips random drivel. "Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven”

Finally the cite. Continence != celibacy.

Glad you like my quoting canon law now, and which continues,

"and are therefore bound to celibacy." Which again does not mean virginity, which is not what i taught, nor does anything here contradict what i taught or reveal a misrepresentation of what is taught, despite your doing so of myself in your many fallacious attempts in trying to charge me with contradictions.

You have used too much of my time in so doing, but which has exposed what RCs will resort to in trying to defend the object of their devotion.

[JCBreckenridge]

“You have used too much of my time in so doing, but which has exposed what RCs will resort to in trying to defend the object of their devotion.”

Yawn. Thought it might be worthwhile apparently I was mistaken.

[boatbums]

IF you don’t believe that this ought to be the canon than why are you bringing it up?

Simply to challenge your sure statement that the RCC canon of Scripture is "exactly" the same as the fourth century Vulgate. You seem to demand that others concede to you and your opinions a lot. You have been quite hesitant to ever do so yourself.

[JCBreckenridge]

For the sake of others who might be reading. "There simply is no error" Yes, there is an error. The Catholic church has a continence requirement and a celibacy discipline. That is the correct language. That you refuse to use the correct language is indicative that you prefer to perpetuate rather than correct error. "Where did i say celibacy was an absolute requirement" Again - the correct language is a celibacy DISCIPLINE, continence requirement. Use it please. If you're going to talk about what the Church teaches, use the correct language. Inventing your own 'preferential' nomenclature is just going to aggravate everyone. “3. contrary to different titles for classes of pastors and titled priests, in Scripture bishops are elders and elders are bishops, the distinctive hierarchical titles being a latter development” This is a separate issue. "Not so; there simply is no use of hiereus for either the apostles and bishops" Yes, there is a distinction made in Acts between the priests who preach and their overseers, the Bishops. Just because protestants choose not to respect this division because they choose not to obey scripture doesn't change what acts actually says. "In Acts 15 the bishops are elders" The word is 'episcopai' = bishop. Episcopal see - bishopric. 'presbyterio' = presbyter = priest. The ones who are overseen in the bishopric. Protestants don't admit this distinction because they don't like priests. Or at least priests with authority to tell their parishioners what to do with their lives. They like sermons though - presumably because the 'pastor' doesn't have or claim this authority. "Titus 1:5-7 admit, "In Ti 1:5, 7 and Acts 20:17, 28, the terms episkopos and presbyteros (“bishop” and “presbyter”) refer to the same persons." Titus 1:5-7 actually says: "The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer manages God’s household, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain." in the Vulgate: "Hujus rei gratia reliqui te Cretæ, ut ea quæ desunt, corrigas, et constituas per civitates ''presbyteros'', sicut et ego disposui tibi, si quis sine crimine est, unius uxoris vir, filios habens fideles, non in accusatione luxuriæ, aut non subditos. Oportet enim ''episcopum'' sine crimine esse, sicut Dei dispensatorem: non superbum, non iracundum, non vinolentum, non percussorem, non turpis lucri cupidum:" As you notice, Presbyteros appears once, Episcopum occurs once, yet the 'NIV' says Presbyteros appears twice. The greek: "Τούτου χάριν ἀπέλιπόν σε ἐν Κρήτῃ, ἵνα τὰ λείποντα ἐπιδιορθώσῃ καὶ καταστήσῃς κατὰ πόλιν '''πρεσβυτέρους''', ὡς ἐγώ σοι διεταξάμην, 6 εἴ τίς ἐστιν ἀνέγκλητος, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ, τέκνα ἔχων πιστά, μὴ ἐν κατηγορίᾳ ἀσωτίας ἢ ἀνυπότακτα. 7 δεῖ γὰρ τὸν '''ἐπίσκοπον''' ἀνέγκλητον εἶναι ὡς θεοῦ οἰκονόμον, μὴ αὐθάδη, μὴ ὀργίλον, μὴ πάροινον, μὴ πλήκτην, μὴ αἰσχροκερδῆ" Once for Episcopos - once for Presbyteros. So clearly the NIV is wrong here. The actual text makes a distinction between the presbyteros (which Titus appoints), and the episcope (which Titus is as a bishop appointing priests). This distinction is not present in the NIV, which speaks volumes, because it's there in the Vulgate, and there in the Greek. "Nor does allowing for some single men being pastors warrant that being the norm." Again, where does Scripture make this argument? Please show me where it says that married men are then norm. "i made it clear that this was not dogma but changeable law, as well as there being differences within Catholicism on celibacy." Then confirm that it is a discipline and cease calling it a 'requirement', when it is not. You are free to teach whatever you want about your church, you are not free to teach error about the Catholic church. "No, it does not. The Latin Rite has a discipline. The Byzantine Rite has a different one. The Catholic church has a continence requirement which is doctrinal and does not very across the rites, and the Catholic church has a celibacy discipline which does vary across the rites." Quoting this again so that people understand what the Church actually teaches. "Ordaining a husband does not rule out marrying after ordination" You're arguing that single persons should not be ordained and then go back and argue that single persons should be allowed to marry after being ordained. This is, a direct contradiction to both scripture and yourself. Your argument doesn't even withstand logical scrutnity within itself yet alone other people. So - either one of the premises is false that single people can be ordained or that priests can marry. Choose. "norm is that they were married" So show me in scripture where it says this. "Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas?" NIV "numquid non habemus potestatem mulierem sororem circumducendi sicut et ceteri Apostoli, et fratres Domini, et Cephas?" VULGATE "μὴ οὐκ ἔχομεν ἐξουσίαν ἀδελφὴν γυναῖκα περιάγειν, ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ τοῦ κυρίου καὶ Κηφᾶς" ἀδελφὴν γυναῖκα περιάγειν KJV - "The right to lead about a sister" So who's correct here, the NIV, which once again translates something wrong, or the KJV, the Vulgate or the Greek original which say very clearly that Paul is referring to sisters. "Meanwhile, there’s nothing in scripture that forbids marriage after ordination." Then we ought to see an example of a priest marrying in scripture. We do not. "If you say this is what the Church ought to do and teach, then you should be able to provide some evidence for this from Scripture - if warrant from Scripture was actually necessary." Nonsense. "Everything is permissible", but not everything is beneficial. The burden is on the one wishing to do something. "thus excluding it from being the norm." Then why does Paul state very clearly, that "the unmarried man is free to devote himself to God, whereas the married man has his interests divided." "in the light of all the evidence." What evidence? It's a bad translation that deliberately obscures what the text actually reads in the Greek. "Do you really hold that an explicit statement is required for something to be true?" Yes, absolutely I do. "The Bible also does not explicitly state the Holy Spirit is the 3rd person of a Triune God, but that is that a valid conclusion based on statements that are made. And RCs go well beyond this in extrapolating support for such things as the sinlessness, perpetual virginity and bodily assumption of Mary." Well we don't believe in sola scriptura, so that deals with that. Scripture AND tradition, in the form of the ecumenical councils for the Trinity. The question for you, since you believe in sola scriptura, why are you a Trinitarian? The answer, "you aren't a sola scripturist either, because you rely on the ecumenical councils too, same as we do."

[JCBreckenridge]

“Simply to challenge your sure statement that the RCC canon of Scripture is “exactly” the same as the fourth century Vulgate. You seem to demand that others concede to you and your opinions a lot. You have been quite hesitant to ever do so yourself.”

I personally find it amusing that protestants are relying upon the testimony of Catholic bishops in an attempt to buttress their own position. I’m not exactly sure how you can argue that “bishops don’t have authority”, and then turn around and quote Athanasius.

I’m sure he dealt with similar things himself.

I’m even more amused to see a protestant actually abandon his own thesis and make the argument that this canon (which isn’t protestant) is the actual canon simply because it includes a few books that the Catholic church does not.

Fine - I’m happy to go there. Are you willing to accept the canon you proposed as legitimate?

[Bobsvainbabblings]

CynicalBear, Greetings_Puny_Humans, Zuriel, you all have been discussing the nature of the Christ. Is He the Son of God as He, and His Father state or is He God the Son as men state?

I find it telling that when Peter stated; ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”. Christ told him that flesh and blood, man, did not reveal that to him but His Father in heaven. Only man has called Jesus; “God the Son”.

A righteous God could not condemn Adam, our us, if He could not prove a man could live a sinless life. Jesus, the Man, is that proof as God our Father tells us in Romans 5. They only way this can work is if they both have the same nature.

The difference between Jesus and us is that He was born without a sin nature which is passed from the father. Adam and Jesus both had/have free will. Adam used his free will to disobey God. Jesus uses His free will to obey God as Romans 5 declares.

God loves us enough to allow Jesus’ obedience to give new life to us all.

May God our Father lead us all to His truth, BVB

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

“Your retreat is as inconsequential”

---

Your usual childishness is showing. Shouldn’t you tell me now how humble you are and retreat again? Still waiting on you to respond to previous message to you. I’m guessing it’s not going to happen.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

“Is He the Son of God as He, and His Father state or is He God the Son as men state?”

---

As men state?

Here is Christ speaking:

Rev_1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Rev_2:8 And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;

Rev_22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

Not only is Christ called Almighty here, who was once dead and is now alive, also notice that verbiage of the ‘First and the Last.”

Here is God speaking in the Old Testament, using the same language to refer to Himself:

Isa_41:4 Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he.

Isa_44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Isa_48:12 Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.

Looks like God says that He is God. He does it quite frequently, you know.

[BlueDragon]

Confucius say;

man who watch other man pee-pee, wooking at man aw rwong

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

“I read it, basically, as Pope Gregory the Great admonishing the head of a recognized ecclesiastical “Fraternity” for trying to assert as much authority as his (Gregory’s) office demands.”

---

I’m not sure how you come to such a conclusion, except perhaps by assuming that was already the case and then reading the letter from that vantage point. Gregory does not say “Hey, you’re stealing my title!”, but, rather, that the title belongs to no one in particular. In this case, let’s read an example where Gregory has the opportunity to embrace his role as Universal Bishop or head of the church. Here is the letter in full, but first I am going to quote the RCC usage of it:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360207040.htm

Now here are the Roman quotations of this letter, wherein they assert that Gregory is a champion of the Primacy of Rome. Take special note of the clever use of ellipses:

Pope Gregory I

“Your most sweet holiness, [Bishop Eulogius of Alexandria], has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy . . . I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter’s chair, who occupies Peter’s chair. And, though special honor to myself in no wise delights me . . . who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Peter from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, ‘To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]. And again it is said to him, ‘And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren’ [Luke 22:32]. And once more, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me? Feed my sheep’ [John 21:17]” (Letters 40 [A.D. 597]).

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-ii

“Who does not know that the holy Church is founded on the solidity of the Chief Apostle, whose name expressed his firmness, being called Peter from Petra (Rock)?...Though there were many Apostles, only the See of the Prince of the Apostles...received supreme authority in virtue of its very principate.” (Letter to the Patriarch Eulogius of Alexandria, Ep. 7)

http://credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/gregory.htm

I provide their versions of the quotations only to highlight for you the parts they omit. And, really, there is no reason for them to omit them. The lines they remove are small sentences, and then they continue quoting right after they finish. It’s quite an embarrasing display!

In this letter, Gregory is specifically attributing to the Bishops of Alexandra and Antioch the “Chair of Peter” and its authority that they bestowed upon him. In the first quotation, the Romans omit the sentence which says: “And, though special honour to myself in no wise delights me, [they omit here] yet I greatly rejoiced because you, most holy ones, have given to yourselves what you have bestowed upon me. [They rebegin here]” After telling them about the “special honor” that is respectively given to both parties, Gregory immediately goes into a discussion on what that special honor is... which is the Primacy of Peter they all enjoy.

“Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us John 17:21.”

Notice how different this reads when one does not omit what the Romans omit! Gregory declares that the See of Peter is one see... but in THREE places, over which THREE Bishops preside, which is Rome, Antioch and Alexandria, the latter of which he was now writing to.

So while the Romans insist that the Primacy of Peter refers to the Bishop of Rome, Gregory applies the Primacy of Peter to ALL the major Bishops of the See. They are, in effect, ALL the Church of Peter, and possess his chair and authority.

And Gregory, of course, isn’t alone in this. Theodoret references the same belief when he places the “throne of Peter” under the Bishop of Antioch:

“Dioscorus, however, refuses to abide by these decisions; he is turning the See of the blessed Mark upside down; and these things he does though he perfectly well knows that the Antiochene (of Antioch) metropolis possesses the throne of the great Peter, who was teacher of the blessed Mark, and first and coryphæus (head of the choir) of the chorus of the apostles.” Theodoret - Letter LXXXVI - To Flavianus, Bishop of Constantinople.

So while you may have particular people saying that the Roman Bishop has authority, or has the chair of Peter, yet these same accolades are given to multiple Bishops, all said to have the “throne” or authority of “Peter.”

In this way we can truly understand Gregory’s rejection of the title of Universal, since to do so would be to steal the Throne from beneath the other Bishops he honored as equals.

This is why I laugh when the Romanists chest beat about their church and how we don’t submit. It was not until after Gregory that the “spirit of anti-Christ” that he warned about would gain the victory in attaining for itself Universality in Rome.

[CynicalBear]

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Who is that referring to?

[boatbums]

Argument is thesis vs thesis. Your thesis is that the protestant version is the correct version. As threadstarter that was your rationale for starting this thread. Now, you’re arguing for a separate set of books that isn’t the protestant Canon as the true canon?

Yes, I believe that what is considered the "Protestant" canon is the correct one. However, the only caveat is that what you want to call the "Protestant" canon really only applies to the books that comprise the Old Testament and recognizes that canonicity SHOULD comport with the belief that the books are God-breathed Scripture as Paul spoke of in II Timothy 3:16. This viewpoint was hardly a novel or Reformation devised view, but was one that had ALWAYS been held by the Jewish people, who Paul, if you recall, said had been given the "oracles of God". If the Jewish religious leaders had NEVER accepted the Apocryphal books as inspired by God on par with the others (the Laws of Moses, The Prophets and the Psalms) and which has been abundantly proven here, then why would we change that?

These extra books are what most people think of when we refer to the Apocrypha. In Judaism, they were classified as, “writings which do not defile the hands”. The term was applied because the books were not considered scripture, and therefore handling them did not cause ones hands to be defiled. (see reference below for cite)

Jesus affirmed the same view as found in Luke 11:51 and Matthew 23:55 when he refers to the “the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah” affirms the first book of the Hebrew scripture as Genesis, and the last book as II Chronicles. This affirmation demonstrates the Hebrew “Canon” was closed by the time of Malachi in 425 B.C. Jesus also referred to the 3-part division of Hebrew scripture in Luke 24:44, referring to the, “Law of Moses.. the prophets …the Psalms”. This reference confirms the current division of Hebrew canon, which excludes the books known as the Apocrypha or Deuterocanonicals. (http://www.truthnet.org/Bible-Origins/6_The_Apocrypha_The_Septugint/index.htm

[CynicalBear]

LOL Took you long enough. You put up a valiant effort.

[boatbums]

No game, no bluff, no deal.

Nobody "chopped" books. Trent "officially" added them to their canon in defiance of the Reformers. That's the real game.