When first exploring Christianity, I saw the claims, both internal and external (Catholic and Gentile) sources, had a continuity with what was found in Scriptures. The question of authority and leadership developed, part of that is related in the Bible, part of that is related in the many extra-biblical sources, whether writings by hostile or friendly sources, archeological sources, and so forth. Thus, I was able to accept the claim that the Church makes; that it is the natural successor of the biblical church.
IOW, we are doing the same thing, so there is no extra level of credibility in agreeing with the Fathers. They were fallible men, just as Luther and Calvin were.
The problem with that argument is that we BOTH rely on the Fathers to have accurately presented the Bible whole and unadultered. I don't rely on Luther and Calvin for my theology. They are among a long line of people who decided to leave the Church. You rely on the Church Fathers for much of YOUR theology: Christ was God, there is a Trinity in the Godhead, Christ rose from the dead, etc...
I thought you were trying to say that the Fathers somehow counted as an unbiased and independent source.
No, I didn't say unbiased. Of course they were biased! The question is whether they related accurate history, despite their bias... Did the Apostles REALLY witness the Risen Lord?! Naturally, they were biased - but does that make them suddenly unreliable? An axiom in historical research is that "we trust the historical records until proven wrong" ("innocent until proven guilty", in legal terms). I do not believe that the Apostles have been proven wrong (despite being biased!) - thus - their recordings (found in the bible) are reliable. This means that their claim to be Scriptural (from God) would have to be true and believed, in my mind. I feel the same about those who followed the Apostles, the next several generations. I believe that they, too, were given a mission by God - I believe their witness.
I wrote: If God, then you will have to answer to Him on your continued rejection.
You responded: True for the non-elect.
don't mention "elect" to me - I am still in counciling over that! I will not argue this, only saying that EVERYONE will have to answer for their response to God - no one is given a free pass. God is not a respecter of persons.
If by "Catholic" you mean Roman Catholic, then I would disagree because of the differences I claim exist between the teachings of the RCC and the scriptures, using the criteria I suggest above. I do believe that Christ continued the Church He founded, but I also think that the Church is composed of all believers. Even today, on the really, really, super-important stuff you and I agree. Christ has preserved His Church.
The Catholic Church was not called "Roman" until the next millenium. However, a rose by any other name is still a rose. An acorn becomes an oak tree. The Catholic Church of 100 AD became what we now call the Roman Catholic Church. This, I believe, is beyond refute. Did Jesus "build" the Catholic Church? Yes - but from heaven. What He did in His unglorified Body was NOT to form the Roman Catholic Church. But there is no doubt that what He built grew into what we now recognize. When we plant an acorn, we are expecting an oak tree. Same with Christ. Being God, He KNEW what was to become of Peter and the Apostles and the type of church government it would become.
To suggest otherwise is to say that God guides EVERYTHING EXCEPT the direction of His Church. A ridiculous statement... Can a Calvinist make such a contradicting statement?
But since I know you to be a reasonable man, I am certain that you would never do that because you would be immediately outed as a fraud. You would be the only one or among a very few. The greater weight of other accounts would be suffocating to your position.
And yet, conspiracy theories abound. Perhaps not on the presidency of George Washington, but on many other issues. Who shot JFK? And so forth. In the end, it takes faith, even on such issues that have been thoroughly researched and documented. We are dealing with events that occured 2000 years ago, not 50. Thus, it will certainly take a leap of faith - albeit a small one - in my opinion. I believe a reasonable man, when examining the evidence, will conclude that the Church set up by Christ grew into what we now call the Catholic Church today.
Theology, OTOH, is much different from a fact like "who is President". Theology "can" be much more subjective, so bias and personal interest matter more since only those who have power can declare "facts".
Yes, that is why one needs an objective standard - just like the Supreme Court exists as an interpreter of the Constitution. However, in the case of the Church heirarchy, we believe that this objective standard is guided from above. Thus, the infallibility that we have come to rely on to KNOW proper theology to those who wish to find it. This is not the case in the Protestant world. One relies on their own judgment and interpretations. I do not think God requires that man hold a PhD in Theology to find the truth.
I am referring to things like when the Bible talks about which of us humans are sinners and says "all" the Fathers say "most", or when the Bible says "eternal" the Fathers say "conditionally eternal", or when the Bible says "saved by grace" the Fathers say "saved by grace plus cooperation", or when the Bible says "brothers and sisters" the Fathers say "cousins". That sort of thing.
Quite plainly, EVERYONE must make such provisions. Otherwise, the bible would contradict itself over and over again. For example, Romans 3 cannot possibly mean ALL men literally are evil, because the very Psalms that Paul quotes ALSO discusses righteous men! In the same Psalms! Clearly, you are viewing Scriptures through a particular interpretative lenses - namely, that ALL men are entirely evil - something that the Church had NEVER held. It is a new invention that causes you to misunderstand Scriptures. Secondly, how is your interpretation of John 6 and eating the flesh of Christ? How do you spin that one?
I certainly do disagree with Calvin on some subjects, such as baptism and some of the Marian doctrines. But that's OK with me. He was just a human being, and not my infallible leader. And I don't mean to sound pompous. If he was around today, I KNOW that I would have a lot more to learn from him than he from me. :)
So how do you know HE is wrong and you are right? Sorry for having to say this, FK, but doesn't that sound a bit pompous?
I do believe the Bible is self-authenticating.
Impossible. Get that out of your head immediately! Most of the Scriptures do not even call themselves the Word of God. The seperate letters by themselves are not related in of themselves internally. We don't even know if some of the letters are fraud - without the Church's witness! How does a person such as yourself DECIDE which letters and books belong? Trust me, many Protestants have tried to come up with something that ignores the Catholic Church. But in the end, even Martin Luther admitted that he had to thank the Catholic Church for preserving and compiling the Canon of Scriptures.
I say that my interpretation is correct generally, but I don't claim infallibility. But your guys DO CLAIM INFALLIBILITY. That is self-proclaimed authority that I do not claim. Big difference. :)
We don't claim it for ourselves. The Scriptures themselves say it. Have you not read Matthew 16:16-20? Or do you think heaven itself is wrong? The other possibility, I suppose, is that the Apostles made up Matthew 16 and it is not from God...
As a military historian, you know of no non-Calvinist who thinks Calvin was of any consequence on history????
An overstatement! I was speaking more of his theology, not of his effect on such things as American capitalism or his place in the history of Genevan politics.
Regards
I certainly do agree with the Fathers on the points you mention above. It is also true that they said it before I said it. So, if that means I rely on them for those ideas, then I suppose I can live with that. :)
I don't rely on Luther and Calvin for my theology. They are among a long line of people who decided to leave the Church.
Calvin and Luther left the RCC, not God's Church.
Don't mention "elect" to me - I am still in counseling over that! I will not argue this, only saying that EVERYONE will have to answer for their response to God - no one is given a free pass. God is not a respecter of persons.
OK, fair enough. :)
... When we plant an acorn, we are expecting an oak tree. Same with Christ. Being God, He KNEW what was to become of Peter and the Apostles and the type of church government it would become. To suggest otherwise is to say that God guides EVERYTHING EXCEPT the direction of His Church. A ridiculous statement... Can a Calvinist make such a contradicting statement?
Christ knew everything that was going to happen with His Church. He knew the Reformation was coming. The question is whether that was a rebellion against God's Church, OR whether the Reformation was God actively correcting His Church. :) The OT tells us that God corrected His Church all the time.
And yet, conspiracy theories abound. Perhaps not on the presidency of George Washington, but on many other issues. Who shot JFK?
Why, it was Kristin Shepard, of course. Everyone knows that. :)
Thus, it will certainly take a leap of faith - albeit a small one - in my opinion.
I fully agree. Our faith need not be baseless.
Yes, that is why one needs an objective standard - just like the Supreme Court exists as an interpreter of the Constitution. However, in the case of the Church hierarchy, we believe that this objective standard is guided from above.
We both know how "objective" our Supreme Court has been, especially over the last 40 years or so. I would see the hierarchy of any organization (excluding the Apostles) headed by fallible men to be just as subject to error. If fallible men truly have free will, then they can choose to not follow God's guidance.
Thus, the infallibility that we have come to rely on to KNOW proper theology to those who wish to find it. This is not the case in the Protestant world. One relies on their own judgment and interpretations.
Do you think it is just luck that so many Reformers agree on at least as much as Catholics (respectively) do? I do not.
For example, Romans 3 cannot possibly mean ALL men literally are evil, because the very Psalms that Paul quotes ALSO discusses righteous men! In the same Psalms!
Romans 3 does not say that all men only do evil from birth to death. It says that all HAVE sinned. Paul would say that ALL righteous men have sinned. Paul knew all about David, a righteous man who sinned. It is perfectly consistent with Psalms.
Clearly, you are viewing Scriptures through a particular interpretative lenses - namely, that ALL men are entirely evil - something that the Church had NEVER held.
I admit to having a particular interpretive lens. I don't know enough to say if the Church ever taught that all men are evil, but I do think the Church teaches that all are in need of a Savior. With a distinction, these ideas go hand in hand. IOW, they are not opposites.
Secondly, how is your interpretation of John 6 and eating the flesh of Christ? How do you spin that one?
Christ was either speaking of cannibalism, or He was speaking metaphorically. There is no mention of cannibalism among the disciples, so we have our answer. Christ compared Himself to the manna in that both were from Heaven, not that both should be literally ingested in the physical sense. We are to take Christ inside of us spiritually, just as the Israelites took the manna inside them physically.
So how do you know HE [Calvin] is wrong and you are right? Sorry for having to say this, FK, but doesn't that sound a bit pompous?
If I automatically thought that everything Calvin ever said was infallible, then he would be my pope. Even though you disagree, we don't do the pope "thing". The disagreements I have with Calvin are absolutely minor. He could have been right about all of them and that wouldn't change my faith.
How does a person such as yourself DECIDE which letters and books belong? Trust me, many Protestants have tried to come up with something that ignores the Catholic Church. But in the end, even Martin Luther admitted that he had to thank the Catholic Church for preserving and compiling the Canon of Scriptures.
If that was really Luther's view, then I would disagree with him. I don't need to ignore the Catholic Church, they got it right in the sense that the Holy Spirit was correctly followed. My thanks go to the Holy Spirit for ensuring that a correct Canon was created. Had modern day Protestants been "in charge" at the time, then I wouldn't give them any personal credit either.
Have you not read Matthew 16:16-20? Or do you think heaven itself is wrong? The other possibility, I suppose, is that the Apostles made up Matthew 16 and it is not from God...
Heaven is not wrong, you and I disagree on the meaning of the passage. I don't think that Christ would build His Church upon a single fallible man, I think He did it upon a faith that Peter expressed. The credit goes to God for giving Peter his faith, not to Peter himself. Within the passage, Christ was using "rock" in two different ways.