tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post5236816039997281012..comments2024-03-16T02:22:18.475-07:00Comments on Articuli Fidei: One “good” rant deserves another…David Waltzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comBlogger98125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-39024655594120878082009-03-16T10:14:00.000-07:002009-03-16T10:14:00.000-07:00Ken,It seems to me that you want to have it both w...Ken,<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that you want to have it both ways...<BR/><BR/>You seem to set arbitrary dates for when things were orthodox... and "tested by Scripture?" My whole point was that I, myself, would not even know what said 'Scripture' was without the Catholic Church.<BR/><BR/>Your ignorance of Catholic ecclesiology shines through when you use "Roman Catholic Church" the way you do...<BR/><BR/>Was every Christian that was in communion with the Pope of Rome throughout history rightly called "Roman Catholic?" <BR/><BR/>I think the waters of historical ecclesiology will start to get even muddier in your answer... but, at least, it will be fin to read. :)<BR/><BR/>BCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-68329265205189650792009-03-14T09:27:00.000-07:002009-03-14T09:27:00.000-07:00The early "catholic church", yes - the early churc...The early "catholic church", yes - the early church of the first five centuries, this is true; (the church of Clement, Polycarp, Justin, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Fermillian, Athanasius, Augustine, Jerome, Chrysostom, Basil, etc.)<BR/><BR/>After the Trinity and Canon was established; <BR/><BR/>(that is still not admitting they were all perfect or infallible or right about everything they wrote or did or believed. All things must be tested by Scripture.)<BR/><BR/>but not the Roman Catholic Church, which is something else altogether - it mutated into something unbiblical.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-65514883662893819422009-03-11T11:01:00.000-07:002009-03-11T11:01:00.000-07:00Ken,I wanted to add that I wouldn't even know what...Ken,<BR/><BR/>I wanted to add that I wouldn't even know what the Bible was without the Catholic Church... I can't speak for your experience, but that's mine.<BR/><BR/>BCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-79561896028190138972009-03-11T10:59:00.000-07:002009-03-11T10:59:00.000-07:00Ken,Yup.I presuppose that the Catholic Church is w...Ken,<BR/><BR/>Yup.<BR/><BR/>I presuppose that the Catholic Church is what She claims to be...<BR/><BR/>I posit that your Reformed distinctives aren't biblical... divorcing the Holy Writ from it's proper context doesn't lead to good places. :)<BR/><BR/>I wish you well, however!!<BR/><BR/>:)<BR/><BR/>BCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-90997654076552206962009-03-11T09:01:00.000-07:002009-03-11T09:01:00.000-07:00BC wrote:So let me see if I get your logic here......BC wrote:<BR/>So let me see if I get your logic here...<BR/><BR/>This is different than God's doctrines, the Catholic doctrines, because though God used fallible beings, it is His doctrines which are perfect, not interpretations in church history. The end-product, the doctrines of God are true and without error, not the persons, God is the Guarentor of truth of the doctrines, not the men; and He never approves of any of their sins." <BR/><BR/><I> BC -<BR/>You are assuming that the Roman Catholic doctrines and dogmas, developed centuries later are Biblical doctrines. They are not, pure and simple.<BR/><BR/>It is easy to believe the Bible is perfect and God’s infallible; it is not easy to believe or trust the Roman Catholic Church, because of all the Mariology, Marian practices and prayers to her and RCs bowing down before statues; Papacy claims, indulgences, rejection of justification by faith alone, the history of the Crusades and the Inquisition, the arrogance of Boniface VIII, the executions of Huss and others; the idolatry of bowing down before bread and wine. (genuflecting), the arrogance and anachronistic apologetics of denying that for centuries Honorius was condemned as teaching heresy and a formal heretic, and yet claiming the 1870 infallibility dogma, etc. The church of Rome must repent of all that stuff (and other things like Purgatory; baptismal regeneration and ex opera operato sacerdotalism, and treasury of merit, etc. but too much to mention here)for any Biblical and thinking Protestant to start trusting its leaders as “from God”.<BR/><BR/>We both agree that the Bible is perfect and God's word; and we both agree the Trinity, for example, comes from the Bible, at least implicitly; but for the Roman Catholic Church to claim it never made a mistake in developing those doctrines which Protestants are still "protesting" against is like saying that all history is open to continuing revelation, when the canon was closed when the last ink dried on Revelation or Jude (whichever was written last).<BR/><BR/></I>Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-23579162336649988722009-03-10T16:41:00.000-07:002009-03-10T16:41:00.000-07:00Ken,You said:This is different than God's word, th...Ken,<BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/><I>This is different than God's word, the Scripture, because though God used fallible human beings, it is the Scriptures that are God-breathed and perfect, not interpretations in church history. The end-product, the Scriptures are God-breathed, not the persons, God inspired the Scriptures, not the men; and He never approves of any of their sins.</I><BR/><BR/><B>So let me see if I get your logic here...<BR/><BR/>This is different than God's doctrines, the Catholic doctrines, because though God used fallible beings, it is His doctrines which are perfect, not interpretations in church history. The end-product, the doctrines of God are true and without error, not the persons, God is the Guarentor of truth of the doctrines, not the men; and He never approves of any of their sins." </B><BR/><BR/>What's wrong with this??<BR/><BR/>BCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-2977342998527505722009-03-10T13:34:00.000-07:002009-03-10T13:34:00.000-07:00David,Interesting quote by Raymond Brown. I under...<I>David,<BR/>Interesting quote by Raymond Brown. I understand what you are getting at. Most of what the essence of what he says is true; I would only say that even though the Greek concepts (homo-ousias, three persona, hupostasis, etc.) were not all known in full in the exact formulas, or not all expressed out by the early church; the truth of them is there in the text, not explicitly, but brought out by systematic study of all the relevant texts and forced into categories of expression by the exhaustion of all possible kinds of heretical views of Jesus and the Trinity. The bottom line is that the Trinity is good and proper and legitimate doctrinal development; whereas the Marian dogmas and Papal dogma and transubstantiation and indulgences were wrong and illegitimate attempts of Doctrinal Development. <BR/><BR/>The Tri-unity is and example of Doctrinal Development, but it is legitimate doctrinal development. It was basically a 451 -year -length Bible study. They exhausted every possibility by refuting all the possibilities of Modalism, Arianism, Sabellius, Apollonarius, Marcion, Valentinus, Basiledes, other Gnostics, Nestorianism, Eutychianism, Monophysite, etc. - the focus on that for 451 years, combating every possible way and option that the “Triad” of one verse (three names/persons/objects (?)/words of “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19); or “God, Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit” ( 2 Cor. 13:14) or the triad of passages and paragraphs and chapters ( I Cor. 12, Matthew 3; Ephesians 4; John 14-17, etc.) </I> <BR/><BR/>Greek philosophy, sharpened by continuing theological disputes in the church from the 2nd to the 5th centuries, contributed to the classical formulation of the dogma.<BR/><BR/><I> If by “contributed” he means, “the source”, I disagree – the ideas are there in the Scriptures itself - the “logos” in John 1:1, 14 – points to God’s “mind and word” coming out from Him and never separate from Him in eternity past. If by “contributed”, he means “God used Greek culture, language and philosophy” to communicate the truth to the world, then I would agree. I would agree that God used the Greek language and culture to communicate His truth and nature, which is already there and in existence. Greek philosophy may have helped communicate truths; but it was not the source. <BR/><BR/>Even “nature” / “substance”/”essence”, we can see the concept is there by many verses. “I and the Father are one”. John 10:30; Hebrews 1:3 “the exact representation of His nature”. And “person” is communicated by “the Father loves the Son”; “the Father sends the Son”; “The Spirit is grieved”, “you have lied to the Holy Spirit”; “The Spirit speaks”, “the Spirit prays with groanings too deep for words”. </I><BR/><BR/><BR/>That Protestants can cull quotes from the ECFs that seem to support their interpretations/s of the Bible is a fact that cannot be denied; but if one is being objective, the same must be said concerning the use of ECFs by Arius and the forms of Arianism that have persisted as an ongoing ‘tradition’ within the fabric of Christian history.<BR/><BR/><I> I disagree with that sentiment. But they do try and make those claims, not only Jehovah’s Witnesses, but also, on another issue, plurality of gods - the Mormons, - for example, Tom Nossor’s contributions to this blog. <BR/><BR/>For me, Arianism is easier to defeat, by John 1:1 (because it has two truths at the same time regarding the nature and person of Christ and relationship to God the Father – 1. “the Word was with God” (personal relationship with)and 2. “the Word was God” (equal in substance/essence ) (along with all the other texts on the Deity of Christ); than Modalism or Monophysitism. Mind you, I don’t think they reflect truth, but they would seem to be closer examples of what you are trying to communicate. Athanasius defeated Arianism by Scripture alone; and it was confirmed by the Counsel of Nicea and that counsel derives its authority from Scripture alone.<BR/><BR/>Ken Temple<BR/> </I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-51095718249430597852009-03-10T12:56:00.000-07:002009-03-10T12:56:00.000-07:00Ken,I don't agree with your premises - therefore, ...Ken,<BR/><BR/>I don't agree with your premises - therefore, of course, I feel as though your conclusions more than suspect...<BR/><BR/>BCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-43079921396186834362009-03-10T12:44:00.000-07:002009-03-10T12:44:00.000-07:00Where does the "RCC" admit it's errors in defined ...Where does the "RCC" admit it's errors in defined dogmas?<BR/><BR/><I> I did not write that; rather they admit they are peccable (made sinful errors in life and practice and morals and example) - <BR/><BR/>since impeccability comes from infallibility <BR/><BR/>therefore the RCC is fallible.<BR/><BR/>They cannot legitimately or logically claim "infallibility in doctrine and doctrine; but fallibility in life and character".<BR/><BR/>This is different than God's word, the Scripture, because though God used fallible human beings, it is the Scriptures that are God-breathed and perfect, not interpretations in church history. The end-product, the Scriptures are God-breathed, not the persons, God inspired the Scriptures, not the men; and He never approves of any of their sins.<BR/><BR/>Ken Temple<BR/><BR/>Having issues with the google sign in and forgetting my old password ! getting old.</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-89674819787552237782009-03-10T12:26:00.000-07:002009-03-10T12:26:00.000-07:00Hi Ken, I finished my rereading Optatus and need t...Hi Ken, <BR/><BR/>I finished my rereading Optatus and need to get to work on a new thread to discuss the issue of <I>ex opera/e operato</I>; however, before doing so, I wanted to briefly comment on the following that you posted:<BR/><BR/>>>Thanks David for your comments - do you see where someone can see church history as a mixture and struggle, but validly quote from them when Biblical doctrine comes shining through at times, from a Protestant perspective?>><BR/><BR/>Me: I most certainly do. But with that said, one must then come to terms with the issue of doctrinal development. Dr. Raymond Brown’s thoughts on this issue are worth repeating:<BR/><BR/>“Three different figures, Father, Son, and Spirit, are brought into conjunction in the NT. Some NT formulas join the three; other references unite the Father and the Son; and still other references relate the Spirit to the Father and/or Son. Nevertheless, in no NT passage, not even in Matt. 28:19, is there precision about three divine <I>Persons</I>, co-equal but distinct, and one divine Nature—the core of the dogma of the Trintiy. Greek philosophy, sharpened by continuing theological disputes in the church from the 2nd to the 5th centuries, contributed to the classical formulation of the dogma. On the one hand one may say, the, that the precise Trinitarian dogma is not detectable in the literal sense of the NT, i.e., was not observably understood by first-century authors and audiences. On the other hand, reflection on NT texts played a crucial role in leading the church to the dogma to the dogma of three divine Persons and one divine Nature, a dogma that employed new terminology and embodied new insights as a response to new questions. There is no need to posit new revelation to account for the truth ultimately phrased in the trinitarian dogma, since that truth was already revealed when God sent Jesus Christ and when the risen Christ communicated his Spirit. Yet the development was not simply a matter of logic. In faith, one can claim that the Spirit guided the church as it moved from the NT triadic passages to perceiving and proclaiming the trinitarian dogma. Christians should not be embarrassed to affirm that they depend upon the Spirit’s guidance in such an essential dogma., for that guidance is really an application of Christ’s promise to be with his community and to send the Paraclete to guide them along the way of all truth…If ‘tradition’ implies that first-century Christianity already understood three coequal but distinct divine Persons and one divine Nature but had not developed the precise terminology, I would dissent. Neither the terminology nor the basic ideas had reached clarity in the first century; problems and disputes were required before the clarity came…<B>Precisely because the ‘trinitarian’ line of development was not the only line of thought detectable in the NT, one must posit the guidance of the Spirit and intuition of faith as the church came to its decision</B>.” (Raymond E. Brown, <I>Biblical Exegesis & Church Doctrine</I>, 1985, pp. 31-33 – bold emphasis mine.)<BR/><BR/>That Protestants can cull quotes from the ECFs that seem to support their interpretations/s of the Bible is a fact that cannot be denied; but if one is being objective, the same must be said concerning the use of ECFs by Arius and the forms of Arianism that have persisted as an ongoing ‘tradition’ within the fabric of Christian history.<BR/><BR/>Grace and peace,<BR/><BR/>DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-2341196364215818152009-03-10T10:40:00.000-07:002009-03-10T10:40:00.000-07:00Where does the "RCC" admit it's errors in defined ...Where does the "RCC" admit it's errors in defined dogmas?<BR/><BR/>BCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-71121780752655143222009-03-10T10:38:00.000-07:002009-03-10T10:38:00.000-07:00Yes, I see what you are getting at - the problem i...Yes, I see what you are getting at - the problem is that we both agree that the Scriptures are God's Word and inerrant and infallible, because God is perfect and does not lie; and cannot contradict Himself.<BR/><BR/>But RCC has a problem in history; Manning and Newman are at least admitting this; especially Manning, he is basically saying, "it doesn't matter what we find; the RCC is still infallible and true."<BR/><BR/>church and history is full of humans; humans err; RC leaders erred; the whole thing crashes in its claims.<BR/><BR/>But God does not err; therefore the Scriptures do not err; therefore the issues are different; one is human (RCC interpretations and leadership) and other is Divine and Perfect (God's word).<BR/><BR/>Infallibility comes from Impeccability. <BR/><BR/>RCC admits peccability; therefore it is wrong and fallible.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-91810418517933602412009-03-10T10:25:00.000-07:002009-03-10T10:25:00.000-07:00Ken,Just for fun...What amount of evidence would i...Ken,<BR/><BR/>Just for fun...<BR/><BR/>What amount of evidence would it take to convince you that the Bible isn't inerrant?<BR/><BR/>Just thought I would ask...<BR/><BR/>I know that you'll see where I am going with this... <BR/><BR/>BCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-79303885559111611802009-03-10T10:24:00.000-07:002009-03-10T10:24:00.000-07:00Of course we all have presuppositions; but the RCC...Of course we all have presuppositions; but the RCC one is anachronistic, since the dogma was not even proclaimed until 1870; and had no evidence of it in the first 6 centuries (Tertullian (disagreed with Callistus, bishop of Rome), Ireneaus (rebuked a bishop of Rome),Cyprian, Firmillian (they both rebuked Stephen, along with 80 other bishops all over) and even Gregory the Great spoke against the idea of a "bishop of bishops")<BR/><BR/>RCC takes that idea that was developed late in history and reads it back into early church history. That is a wrong use of history and an invalid use of presuppositional truth.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-61155020386004346852009-03-10T10:16:00.000-07:002009-03-10T10:16:00.000-07:00I don't accept Webster as an authority on Catholic...I don't accept Webster as an authority on Catholic theological terminology... period.<BR/><BR/><I> Ok, but don't you see the 2 quotes Webster gives from Newman and Manning put the RCC in an awkward position?</I>Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-74306496516820888612009-03-10T10:14:00.000-07:002009-03-10T10:14:00.000-07:00I want more that just Svendsen's word on it. To wa...I want more that just Svendsen's word on it.<BR/><BR/><I> To want more is a "heresy and treason", as Manning put it.<BR/><BR/>no amount of evidence will do; without giving up the whole "infallible church" dogma and be forced to consider that the RCC is wrong in its sweeping claims as the only true historical and biblical church.</I>Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-79251251819049638942009-03-10T10:10:00.000-07:002009-03-10T10:10:00.000-07:00BC,I understand that RC disagrees with Evang. Prot...BC,<BR/>I understand that RC disagrees with Evang. Prot. interpretaion of the Bible.<BR/><BR/>You are implying that "the grammar is wrong" by "the arbitrary timeline", etc., because you can see that languages change in different periods. Classic, Attic, and Koine Greek have different meanings and shades in different periods.<BR/><BR/>For example, to give an example I am familiar with in another languge(as far I could tell, because it is only used about 11 times in the whole OT), Hebrew, the Hebrew word "aval" means "truly, indeed, yes, but" in pre-exilic books, but in post-exilic books, it meant, "no", or "however". <BR/><BR/>Svendsen provided lots of evidence that during that period, the heos hous construction meant, "until", with the understanding that the action before it would stop or change.<BR/><BR/>I cannot make any one come a decision among other Greek scholars in grammars to add this finding.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, any Protestant Grammars would be accussed of just being "biased" if they did add it; and if Roman Catholics like Fitzmeyer or Raymond Brown admitted it; (I don't know if these guys are still alive; my only point is any RC scholar that might be willing to admit Svendsen is right; without the a priori presupposition of the infallible church) they are just accused of being liberal.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-30763957508404974932009-03-10T10:07:00.000-07:002009-03-10T10:07:00.000-07:00Ken,Svendsen did a good job... I disagree... show ...Ken,<BR/><BR/>Svendsen did a good job... I disagree... show me the hoards of scholars and grammars that support your contention...<BR/><BR/>I disagree that Svendsen proved his "rule"... I am not agreeing that he's shown it to be there case (and you act as if he has no presuppositions coming to the text on this issue which is PATENTLY RIDICULOUS)...<BR/><BR/>And I try to avoid quoting Catholic authors when discussing protestant theological terminology... you seem to think Webster is some sort of expert on the meaning of "unanimous consent of the Father" for Catholics... which is also PATENTLY RIDICULOUS.<BR/><BR/>So... I disagree that Svendsen's rule is true... I don't think he's shown it... I want more that just Svendsen's word on it...<BR/><BR/>I don't accept Webster as an authority on Catholic theological terminology... period.<BR/><BR/>Disagreeing with Svendsen/Webster/King/White et al... on biblical interpretation DOES NOT MEAN one disagrees with the Bible... no matter how you slice it.<BR/><BR/>BCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-72665685097213119732009-03-10T09:51:00.000-07:002009-03-10T09:51:00.000-07:00Svendsen did a good job of showing that during tha...Svendsen did a good job of showing that during that period, of Koine Greek, that was the understanding.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, the context shows the obvious meaning, as does the brothers and sisters of Jesus and the Greek words for "cousin" and 'relative" in other passages.<BR/><BR/>What I am saying that you will appeal to a later time in history where the semantic range is wider, ("which RC and EO have no problem with", to paraphrase your words)because it was during that period that the dogmas began and continued say from 550 - 1870 and 1950.<BR/><BR/>"the appeal to antiquity is a heresy and treason" Manning <BR/><BR/>This is most clear that no matter what evidence is brought forth, the "infallible church" says, a priori, "It does not matter; whatever we say goes; you are in rebellion".Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-80187373966875469952009-03-10T09:44:00.000-07:002009-03-10T09:44:00.000-07:00Oops . . . in haste I made some mistakes.I should ...Oops . . . in haste I made some mistakes.<BR/><BR/>I should be clearer – <BR/><BR/>“. . . then obviously they are going to base their arguments on an a priori, presupposition method and think that the dogma is the truth and the earlier grammar and history is wrong, because to admit that would be to bring down their whole "infallible church" edifice.”<BR/><BR/><BR/>Newman wrote:<BR/>“It does not seem possible, then, to avoid the conclusion that, whatever be the proper key for harmonizing the records and documents of the early and later Church, and true as the dictum of Vincentius must be considered in the abstract, and possible as its application might be in his own age, when he might almost ask the primitive centuries for their testimony, it is hardly available now, or effective of any satisfactory result. The solution it offers is as difficult as the original problem. “<BR/>(An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine [New York: Longmans, Green and Co., reprinted 1927], p. 27)<BR/><BR/><BR/>“The obvious problem with Newman's analysis and conclusion is that it flies in the face of the decrees of Trent and Vatican I, both of which decreed that the unanimous consent of the fathers does exist. “ William Webster, p. 276, Volume 2, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith.<BR/><BR/><BR/>The appeal of Svendsen to the grammar and history of antiquity to that period in historical context is the work of a careful scholar and proper historical study. The appeal to antiquity of this grammar at the time of the NT is, as Henry Edward Manner calls it, “a treason and a heresy”. Here we have a clear a priori rejection of any historical evidence that might go against the infallible pronouncements of the Roman Papacy and RC idea of an “infallible church” that has never endorsed heresy or false doctrine.<BR/><BR/><BR/>“Never was this more blatantly admitted and expressed than it was by the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, Henry Edward Manning (1808-1892) who was one of the leading proponents for the definition of papal rule and infallibility at Vatican I. His words are the expression of sola ecclesia with a vengeance: <BR/>But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine. How can we know what antiquity was except through the Church?…I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. . . . The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour (emphasis mine). <BR/>(The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation, New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date, pp. 227-228)” <BR/>(Webster, Ibid, p. 281)Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-75511983432594785682009-03-10T09:35:00.000-07:002009-03-10T09:35:00.000-07:00Ken,"I haven't spoken that kind of language, but I...Ken,<BR/><BR/>"I haven't spoken that kind of language, but I agree with the conclusion..." Yeah...<BR/><BR/>No one is claiming the grammar is wrong!! When did I claim that?!!? I am claiming that I haven't seen any evidence that 'Svendsen's rule' is worth anything!! I thought I made that pretty clear.<BR/><BR/>Catholics actually disagree with how you interpret the Bible!! Do you not get that?? It's not as if the Magisterium is saying... "we disagree with St. Paul here" - that's just how you understand it... you confuse 'Reformed' with biblical... I don't... and I see no reason AT ALL to see them as the same... none.<BR/><BR/>"the grammar is wrong..."<BR/><BR/>You've GOT to be kidding...<BR/><BR/>BCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-58884112887306086622009-03-10T09:24:00.000-07:002009-03-10T09:24:00.000-07:00BC,I have not spoken in that kind of language, ( "...BC,<BR/>I have not spoken in that kind of language, ( "liars and cheats", etc.); <BR/><BR/>But,<BR/><BR/>If something is accepted as infallible dogma beginning in say, the 6th Century and continuing to 1870 and 1950, etc. in the Roman Catholic understanding and perspective and in the history of EO position on the "seven ecumenical councils"; then obviously they are going to a priori, prepositionally think that the dogma is the truth and the grammar is wrong, because to admit that would be to bring down their whole "infallible church" edifice.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-49055447636950808722009-03-10T08:21:00.000-07:002009-03-10T08:21:00.000-07:00Ken,I don't agree with how you read the Bible... w...Ken,<BR/><BR/>I don't agree with how you read the Bible... why in the world would I agree with how you read the Fathers...<BR/><BR/>So the reason that you can't find Greek grammars agreeing with Svendsen's seeming arbitrary timeline about when heos hou went from having the wider semantic range that Catholics and Orthodox have no problem with; to the more limited one that Svendsen says was in use during the writing of the NT (that fits nicely with certain Protestant presuppositions about Mary, sex, and children); and then back to the wider semantic range that Catholics and Orthodox have no problem with is because; even though Svendsen has proved his case beyond a reasonable doubt to a majority of Greek scholars... it just hasn't had the time to be implemented yet?<BR/><BR/>This is more clear proof that Catholics and Orthodox scholars are liars and cheats!! That they are boldly lying to millions of souls daily about these things!! We should shout this from the rooftops!!<BR/><BR/>Please.<BR/><BR/>BCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-53730400394913798372009-03-10T06:27:00.000-07:002009-03-10T06:27:00.000-07:00Thanks David for your comments - do you see where ...Thanks David for your comments - do you see where someone can see church history as a mixture and struggle, but validly quote from them when Biblical doctrine comes shining through at times, from a Protestant perspective?Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-50214125043012297082009-03-10T06:22:00.000-07:002009-03-10T06:22:00.000-07:00on canon 13 of Nicea - "only one bishop per city"P...on canon 13 of Nicea - "only one bishop per city"<BR/><BR/>Protestants, in agreeing with the main issues of Nicea - Chalcedon, on the nature of Christ and the Deity of Christ, his humanity, the Trinity, the Deity of the Holy Spirit; does not necessarily mean that we see every single canon of the councils as "infallible"(as the RCC and EO does) or Biblical.<BR/><BR/>The move from a plurality of elders to the mono-episcopate of a whole city is part of the historical development of moving from the NT model of a pluality of elders (Acts 14:23 - "elders for every church" - persbuteros and episcopos are the same office - Titus 1:5-7; Acts 20:17, 28; I Clement 44. Didache, Polycarp also indicate the same thing, by the mention of only 2 offices. 1.Elders/bishops and 2. Deacons)<BR/><BR/>Jerome even wrote:<BR/>The Jerome reference was from his<BR/>Commentary on the Epistle to Titus, PL 26:562-563.<BR/><BR/>Commentariorum In Epistolam Ad Titum, <BR/>I am copying it from another book, so I don't know if it is on the standard ECF sets on New Advent or the ccel.org sites.<BR/><BR/>PL means Patrologiae Latinae (Latin version of the Fathers, Patrictics)-- the Latin Fathers books put together by Jacques Paul Migne (221 Volumes, Paris: 1857-1887). Usually when someone is using this as a source, it means that it has not been translated yet into English or it was not included in the standard volumes of the Early Church Fathers by Schaff and Wace or at the newadvent or ccel.org websites. <BR/><BR/>"A presbyter, therefore, is the same as a bishop, and before dissentions were introduced into religion by the instigation of the devil, and it was said among the peoples, “I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, and I am of Cephas”, Churches were governed by a common council of presbyters; afterwards, when everyone thought that those whom he had baptized were his own, not Christ’s, it was decreed in the whole world that one chose out of the presbyters should be placed over the rest, and to whom all care of the Church should belong, that the seeds of schisms might be plucked up . . . Therefore, as we have shown, among the ancients presbyters were the same as bishops; but by degrees, that the plants of dissension might be rooted up, all responsibility was transferred to one person. Therefore, as the presbyters know that it is by custom of the Church that are to be subject to him who is placed over them so let the bishops know that they are above presbyters rather by custom than by Divine appointment.”<BR/><BR/>So Jerome admits that the original and Biblical church government, that by Divine appointment was a plurality of elders, and that the bishop being exalted over them was a historical custom, a practical move to make it easier to rule and manage. Jerome clearly distinguishes between “divine appointment” (the Scriptures) and “custom” (a practice that became a tradition latter).<BR/><BR/><BR/>As a matter of practice and management, it was an understandable development as Christianity grew; but it was not a Biblical move or sound doctrinal change.<BR/><BR/>Even with that change, Cyprian and 80 some-odd other bishops of N. Africa and Asia Minor ( Firmillian being one of the main ones) that Stephen, bishop of Rome was wrong to claim that he was "bishop of bishops". (around 255 AD)<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Canon VIII.<BR/><BR/>Concerning those who call themselves Cathari,[Novatians] if they come over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the clergy. But it is before all things necessary that they should profess in writing that they will observe and follow the dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church; in particular that they will communicate with persons who have been twice married, and with those who having lapsed in persecution have had a period [of penance] laid upon them, and a time [of restoration] fixed so that in all things they will follow the dogmas of the Catholic Church. Wheresoever, then, whether in villages or in cities, all of the ordained are found to be of these only, let them remain in the clergy, and in the same rank in which they are found. But if they come over where there is a bishop or presbyter of the Catholic Church, it is manifest that the Bishop of the Church must have the bishop’s dignity; and he who was named bishop by those who are called Cathari shall have the rank of presbyter, unless it shall seem fit to the Bishop to admit him to partake in the honour of the title. Or, if this should not be satisfactory, then shall the bishop provide for him a place as Chorepiscopus, or presbyter, in order that he may be evidently seen to be of the clergy, and that there may not be two bishops in the city.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.com