tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post7447082992581041368..comments2024-03-21T10:33:24.876-07:00Comments on Articuli Fidei: Unity and the Christian Church: Part 3b - the Catholic TraditionDavid Waltzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-80435335206964728032018-11-01T08:54:38.312-07:002018-11-01T08:54:38.312-07:00Hi David, I'm super busy with work so will hav...Hi David, I'm super busy with work so will have to get to this later. In short though, I didn't know there was a textual variant so I've not delved into it much. Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-86543426158400632972018-10-31T09:47:06.978-07:002018-10-31T09:47:06.978-07:00Hi Nick,
Don't know if you have read my Octob...Hi Nick,<br /><br />Don't know if you have read my October 30, 2018 1:15 PM response, but whether or not you have, I need to bring to your attention (and any other potential readers) that this beachbum did in fact "miss something". My response relied on Greek text published in the United Bible Society's <i>The Greek New Testament</i> - Fourth Revised Edition. I pointed out in my above response:<br /><br />>>In Acts 2:38 the article is added before <i>hamartiōn</i>>><br /><br />The textual apparatus provided in the <i>The Greek New Testament</i> - Fourth Revised Edition (p. 414) shows no indication that a textual variant exists for the Acts 2:38 phrase: εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν (<i>eis aphesin tōn hamartiōn</i>). <br /><br />However, last night before going to bed, I pulled off of the shelf Nestle-Aland's 27th Edition of the <i>Novum Testamentum Graece</i> to read before I went to sleep. To my surprise, the textual apparatus clearly shows that there is in fact a number of Greek codices which contain a variant reading for the Acts 2:38 phrase, εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν (<i>eis aphesin tōn hamartiōn</i>)—the variant being that the article τῶν IS NOT INCLUDED (see page 326). In fact, more Greek codices exclude the article than those which include it. <br /><br />With the above in mind, the question that needs to be asked is: which reading is the correct one. Those who support what is known as the 'Minority Text' type position will include the article, whilst those who endorse the 'Majority Text' type will exclude it. <br /><br />Now, before ending, I need to point out that yesterday, I overlooked the following link that you provided in your October 29, 2018 3:28 PM post:<br /><br />https://thisholysword.blogspot.com/2013/03/acts-238-are-you-baptized-because-you.html<br /><br /><br />I read the article this morning and immediately noticed that the author when quoting the Acts 2:38 passage uses the textual variant found in the, "Textus Receptus and the Majority of Byzantine texts", which excludes the article. <br /><br />Your post seems to endorse the "Textus Receptus and the Majority of Byzantine texts" reading, which leads me to ask: do you believe Majority text type reading is the correct one?<br /><br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />David<br />David Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04577758667034909467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-38530559941323104412018-10-30T13:26:06.039-07:002018-10-30T13:26:06.039-07:00Hello again Nick,
Thanks much for the links to yo...Hello again Nick,<br /><br />Thanks much for the links to your informative post and the <i>Themelios</i> article; more evidences the Bible teaches that salvation is synergistic and not monergistic.<br /><br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />David<br />David Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04577758667034909467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-19664425491314789372018-10-30T13:15:20.892-07:002018-10-30T13:15:20.892-07:00Hi Nick,
So good to see you back at AF. Yesterday...Hi Nick,<br /><br />So good to see you back at <i>AF</i>. Yesterday, you posted:<br /><br />==Way late to this party, not sure if this was addressed. <br /><br />///For this is my blood of the new testament, <br />which is shed for many <br />for the remission of sins.///<br />-Matthew 26:28 <br /><br />Same Greek phrase "for the remission of sins" as in Acts 2:38. Clearly, Jesus is not saying His blood would be shed because sins were already forgiven - since that would make His death pointless - but rather to cause the forgiveness. Thus, when Peter says Repent (always a precondition for forgiveness) and be Baptized for the "for the remission of sins," it means R&B cause the forgiveness.==<br /><br />There is actually a slight difference in the Greek texts between Matt. 26:38 and Acts 2:38. The Greek translated into the English phrase, "for the remission of sins" in Matt. 26:28 is, εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν (<i>eis aphesin hamartiōn</i>); but in Acts 2:38 it is, εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν (<i>eis aphesin tōn hamartiōn</i>). In Acts 2:38 the article is added before <i>hamartiōn</i>, whilst in Matt. 26:38 <i>hamartiōn</i> is anarthrous (i.e. without the article). <br /><br />Now, a couple of points need to be made. First, the exact Greek phrase in question—εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν—is also used in the following texts: Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; and Luke 24:47. Second, the addition of the article to the above Greek phrase is found only in Acts 2:38. Why the article is added by the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38, and not the others, is a bit of a mystery to me. I spent this morning consulting over a dozen commentaries and Greek grammars to gain some insight into the why; but alas, I found nothing which addresses this issue. With the aforementioned absence in mind, I would like to suggest that Luke, via the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, added the article to place on emphasis on "the sins" which are remitted, rather than just "sins" in general. Given the Patristic and Catholic understanding that it is past sins which are remitted via baptism—and that baptism is absent from the Matt. 26:38; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; and Luke 24:47 passages—it makes good sense to me that the article is added to bring one to the Patristic and Catholic understanding: baptism is for the remission of past sins. <br /><br />But then, this beachbum may have missed something...<br /><br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />David <br />David Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04577758667034909467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-71203096308377724012018-10-29T15:30:17.839-07:002018-10-29T15:30:17.839-07:00As for "calling upon his name" - it turn...As for "calling upon his name" - it turns out this is a well-established Biblical Hebrew Idiom meaning 'engage in liturgical worship'. <br /><br />http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2018/09/why-calling-upon-name-of-lord-to-be.htmlNickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-43781409466443736722018-10-29T15:28:19.752-07:002018-10-29T15:28:19.752-07:00Way late to this party, not sure if this was addre...Way late to this party, not sure if this was addressed. <br /><br />///For this is my blood of the new testament, <br />which is shed for many <br />for the remission of sins.///<br />-Matthew 26:28 <br /><br />Same Greek phrase "for the remission of sins" as in Acts 2:38. Clearly, Jesus is not saying His blood would be shed because sins were already forgiven - since that would make His death pointless - but rather to cause the forgiveness. Thus, when Peter says Repent (always a precondition for forgiveness) and be Baptized for the "for the remission of sins," it means R&B cause the forgiveness. <br /><br />https://thisholysword.blogspot.com/2013/03/acts-238-are-you-baptized-because-you.html<br /><br />Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-68229302710861798162018-10-09T04:38:55.212-07:002018-10-09T04:38:55.212-07:00Hi Ken,
You wrote:
"So, since infants cann...Hi Ken, <br /><br />You wrote:<br /><br />"So, since infants cannot repent and have faith in Christ, how does the grace / power apply to them?<br /><br />Colossians 2:11-12 indicates that the person being baptized must have faith - "through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead". <br /><br />Yes I agree. Baptism IS completed by faith. When or if the infant comes to have faith, he/she is raised with Christ. I would suggest the first stage is burial/forgiveness of original sin or inclination to sin. Rom 6:3-4. Regeneration prepares the soul to receive the Spirit's guidance to come to faith.<br /><br />Also, "I heard this delightful Reformational Anglican from Australia, (Philip Jensen) who explained how the Australian Anglicans were kept from the high church Oxford movement..." <br /><br />To me this is a great burden. You really can't look at the earliest Christian centuries and not see that ritual, in the right context, is sacramental. God is not ashamed of the material creation even though it is fallen. He created it ! So why not use material substances as vehicles of His grace ? He could have made salvation by pronouncement but instead He incarnated His Son.<br /><br />As mentioned, all the Apostolic Churches have the same type of view of the sacraments. If they had a "protestant view" that denigrated sacramentalism, you need to show which Councils were held to combat the growing sacramental understanding of grace over the centuries. There were none !<br /><br />Icons, oil, bread, wine, music, different coloured vestments all point to something and have a story. This is human experience. We aren't all supposed to just sit in lecture halls to be "transformed into Christ". Look at learning these days. Teachers, videos, wallcharts, excursions, volunteering etc. <br /><br />The church was built on Prophets and Apostles. Some of the Prophets lived in caves away from the Jewish community...hmmm...sounds like monasticism to me. The OT had priests & they were still around during Jesus' time. The early church of Acts didn't preach against the priesthood in the Synagogues when they preached salvation. It doesn't seem they were out to tear down the priesthood or remove some of the symbols used in worship. How come all the Apostolic churches ended up with a priesthood and with altars ? <br /><br />Cheers<br />DennisDennishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13569322108527919446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-22698217457117073912018-10-07T07:06:39.213-07:002018-10-07T07:06:39.213-07:00While I do not think it is right to have images or...While I do not think it is right to have images or statues in a worship context, I am not extreme on that as some Reformed folks are - in that many even object to a simple cross at the front of a church, or even object to the Campus Crusade for Christ Jesus Film or any pictures of Jesus, etc. in history books or theological history books. ( I am glad from an archeological point of view, to see large frescos of Biblical scenes (like in the ancient cave churches in Cappodocia, Today in Turkey). Paintings for education to those who could not read is ok by me. I do not see a problem with pictures of Biblical history and pictures of Jesus in historical teaching contexts, as long as the teacher explains that this is just an artists guess or rendition of Jesus and we do not know how He looked; and to emphasize that.<br /><br />Here is a pretty good article on that issue. <br /><br />https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/what-did-jesus-look-like/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-4338328731221276512018-10-07T06:33:20.978-07:002018-10-07T06:33:20.978-07:00anathema to a whole tribe of Cranmers, Ridleys, La...<i>anathema to a whole tribe of Cranmers, Ridleys, Latimers, and Jewels! perish the names of Bramhall, Ussher, Taylor, Stillingfleet, and Barrow from the face of the earth, </i><br /><br />I recognize the names of the first three and Ussher, but don't know the others.<br /><br />The problem with Newman is that he is assuming the later Councils are going to get everything right, that somehow they have inherent or guaranteed or infallible power.<br /><br />I reject that notion. While the first four Ecumenical Councils were right on the Deity of Christ, the Trinity, the 2 natures of Christ, etc. there were problems with some of the details. (unbiblical and Cyril of Alexandria, from what I have read, was immoral and unethical in the way he used political power and mob rule at the Council of Ephesus. I think Nestorius was wrong to say that Christ was 2 persons (or implied it); but he was certainly right that the phrase Theotokos or "God bearing one", in more popular parlance "The Mother of God" would lead to misunderstandings about Mary and lead to over-exalting Mary. He was right on that aspect. <br /><br />The dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary was wrong, so The second Council of Constantinople in 553 in saying Mary is perpetual virgin is wrong and unbiblical.<br /><br />Also the 2nd Council of Nicea (787 AD) and its promotion of veneration of images is wrong and unBiblical. <br /><br />Just because Acts 15 was right (we know this because it is in Scripture, and the decisions are clearly right by the quotes of the OT of Peter and James and the harmony with the book of Galatians), and just because Nicea, Constantinople, and Chalcedon got it right on Christ and the Trinity, does not mean that correct doctrine will always be proclaimed at future councils. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-77595849283838546612018-10-07T06:17:03.209-07:002018-10-07T06:17:03.209-07:00http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2016/07/...http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2016/07/a-delightful-australian-anglican-true.html<br /><br />I was at this conference where I heard this delightful Reformational Anglican from Australia, (Philip Jensen) who explained how the Australian Anglicans were kept from the high church Oxford movement of John Henry Newman, which he explained was more about getting the Anglican church to incorporate external rituals, etc. - miter hats, etc. (smells and bells)<br /><br />Certainly not the earliest centuries. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-67231146891222897712018-10-07T06:11:51.844-07:002018-10-07T06:11:51.844-07:00Baptism is still washing away past sin or the incl...<i>Baptism is still washing away past sin or the inclination to sin, but without faith it also is a judgement on oneself in rejecting so great a salvation.</i><br /><br />So, since infants cannot repent and have faith in Christ, how does the grace / power apply to them?<br /><br />Colossians 2:11-12 indicates that the person being baptized must have faith - "through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead". <br /><br />"having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him <b>through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. "</b><br /><br />True faith has to have faith in the resurrection of Christ from the dead, which means the person must understand also that He was crucified and died for sin, and also presupposes some level of content of who Jesus was, what His atonement means, and what that person's sin did to Christ on the cross, etc. - some level of understanding of my own sin, repentance, etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-25831757230347212982018-10-07T00:38:55.334-07:002018-10-07T00:38:55.334-07:00Thanks David.
Not exactly sure what those other A...Thanks David.<br /><br />Not exactly sure what those other Anglican Divines believed which Henry Newman mentions, but I hope they weren't dismissive of The Patristic witness.<br /><br />Hi Ken,<br /><br />I think you may be holding a view of "materialised" grace that may have been an erroneous position held by some of these Apostolic groups in various times and places. I certainly mentioned on another post that growing up in the RC of the 70s, My perception was that baptism automatically made me a Christian. When I asked the priest about the place of faith, he gave me a booklet that so confused me it led me to leave the church.<br /><br />However, I believe with the Fathers that the sacraments are "actualised" grace. God is there in a specialised way for a specific purpose. However, it takes faith to apply the sacramental grace to our life. For example, the Eucharist is still Christ present but without faith taking it is taking His judgement on oneself, "not discerning the Lords Body". Baptism is still washing away past sin or the inclination to sin, but without faith it also is a judgement on oneself in rejecting so great a salvation.<br /><br />Remember Paul said that in Moses time ALLwere baptised under the cloud, that includes infants. <br /><br />So sacraments don,t need to be either talisman or empty symbols.<br /><br />Cheers<br />DennisDennishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13569322108527919446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-40511788823495427282018-10-06T10:32:52.654-07:002018-10-06T10:32:52.654-07:00Hi Dennis,
Just wanted to let you know that appre...Hi Dennis,<br /><br />Just wanted to let you know that appreciate both of your responses to Ken—you have given all of us much to reflect on. One thought that immediately came to mind after reading those posts was something that John Henry Newman said in his <i>Apologia Pro Vita Sua</i>. After acknowledging his firm belief that the early Church consistently formulated correct doctrines via the Ecumenical Councils during the theological controversies of first four centuries—Trinitarianism vs. modalism, adoptionism, Arianism, et al.;—he came to the following conclusion:<br /><br />>>It was difficult to make out how the Eutychians or Monophysites were heretics, unless Protestants and Anglicans were heretics also; difficult to find arguments against the Tridentine Fathers, which did not tell against the Fathers of Chalcedon; difficult to condemn the Popes of the sixteenth century, without condemning the Popes of the fifth. The drama of religion, and the combat of truth and error, were ever one and the same. The principles and proceedings of the Church now, were those of the Church then; the principles and proceedings of heretics then, were those of Protestants now. I found it so,—almost fearfully; there was an awful similitude, more awful, because so silent and unimpassioned, between the dead records of the past and the feverish chronicle of the present. The shadow of the fifth century was on the sixteenth. It was like a spirit rising from the troubled waters of the old world, with the shape and lineaments of the new. The Church then, as now, might be called peremptory and stern, resolute, overbearing, and relentless; and heretics were shifting, changeable, reserved, and deceitful, ever courting civil power, and never agreeing together, except by its aid; and the civil power was ever aiming at comprehensions, trying to put the invisible out of view, and substituting expediency for faith. What was the use of continuing the controversy, or defending my position, if, after all, I was forging arguments for Arius or Eutyches, and turning devil's advocate against the much-enduring Athanasius and the majestic Leo? Be my soul with the Saints! and shall I lift up my hand against them? Sooner may my right hand forget her cunning, and wither outright, as his who once stretched it out against a prophet of God! anathema to a whole tribe of Cranmers, Ridleys, Latimers, and Jewels! perish the names of Bramhall, Ussher, Taylor, Stillingfleet, and Barrow from the face of the earth, ere I should do aught but fall at their feet in love and in worship, whose image was continually before my eyes, and whose musical words were ever in my ears and on my tongue!>> (<i>Apologia Pro Vita Sua</i>, 1978 Sheed and Ward edition, pp. 77, 78.)<br /><br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />David<br />David Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04577758667034909467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-21591541864813338252018-10-06T10:11:53.282-07:002018-10-06T10:11:53.282-07:00Ken:== Anyway, what do you think the difference is...Ken:== Anyway, what do you think the difference is between<br />1. Roman Catholic Synergism<br />vs.<br />2. Protestant Arminian Synergism<br /><br />??<br /><br />What is the difference between the 2 systems?==<br /><br />It has been quite awhile ago that I last did any in depth research into the Arminian system; most of that research concentrated on the debates between Calvinist and Arminian apologists. As you know, the foundational base for Arminianism is the rejection of the 5 points of Calvinism—i.e. TULIP.<br /><br />I noticed back then, well before my entrance into the RCC, that Arminianism and Catholicism held in common the rejection of the 5 points of Calvinism. The BIG question for me back then was this: did regeneration come before or after repentance and faith? If before, the logical consequence would be TULIP; if after, the rejection of TULIP must be maintained. After years of intense study and prayer, I became convinced that Scripture teaches that regeneration comes after repentance and faith; rejecting R. C. Sproul's notion of "Holy Rape" and TULIP. <br /><br />As for the difference between "Roman Catholic Synergism" and "Protestant Arminian Synergism" one must first keep in mind that those folk who have embraced the basic tenants of Jacobus Arminius have in common the rejection of the 5 points of Calvinism; but beyond that, there exists a number of divisions. Some embrace infant baptism, some baptismal regeneration, and some infused justifying grace. With that said, I think the primary difference between "Roman Catholic Synergism" and "Protestant Arminian Synergism" lies in the emphasis that is placed on the role that the visible Church plays in soteriology. <br /><br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />David<br />David Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04577758667034909467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-92073395408116172432018-10-06T09:15:03.108-07:002018-10-06T09:15:03.108-07:00Good morning Ken,
Yesterday, you posted:
==...fo...Good morning Ken,<br /><br />Yesterday, you posted:<br /><br />==...for me, what is significant is the idea of Roman Catholic teaching on ex opere operato infant baptismal regeneration and initial justification that "heals the soul" (which I completely disagree with) so that as a child grows, he can freely choose the right way and continue in the faith until confirmation (another step in the 7 sacraments system of Roman Catholicism) . Do they believe a child can do penance before confirmation ?==<br /><br />Before I answer your question, would like to share a few thoughts on <i>ex opere operato</i>. First, "the sacraments confer the grace that they signify". Second, the sacraments, "are <i>efficacious</i> because in them Christ himself is at work: it is he who baptizes, he who acts in his sacraments in order to communicate the grace that each sacrament signifies. (Quotes are from the online <i>Catechism of the Catholic Church</i><a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s1c1a2.htm" rel="nofollow">LINK</a>.)<br /><br />A fuller description of the nature of the sacraments from the Catholic view is, <i>ex opere operato Christi</i>.<br /><br />As for your question, yes, "a child can do penance before confirmation". Note the following:<br /><br />"Children must receive the sacrament of penance before they receive their first communion..." (<a href="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_19770331_penance-communion_en.html" rel="nofollow">link to Vatican letter</a>)<br /><br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />David<br />David Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04577758667034909467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-36314086970117073692018-10-06T07:46:09.366-07:002018-10-06T07:46:09.366-07:00The issue is the understanding of matter and physi...The issue is the understanding of matter and physical things, and does the ceremony/ritual / matter/ physical action cause grace or is it a symbol of the grace that comes to us by true internal repentance and faith ?<br /><br />Sometimes we see something happens in Scripture (miracles, tongues, healings, etc.); but we don't see grace causing sanctification in an infant today or these things today. (except for claims mostly by Charismatics/ Pentecostals today - I am quite skeptical of their claims, because all I have seen is not credible from that camp.) We have to take the reality and meaning of the ceremony on faith alone today. <br /><br />It is easy to see how human beings can begin to think the ritual / ceremony / physical matter does something. Whatever the unity there is in the traditional older groups (EO, RC, OO (Monophysite), Nestorian Assyrian, etc.) - it is difficult to know how they understood each of those areas (baptism, Eucharist, etc.) at the time of the era of Nicea 325-Chalcedon 451, etc. - all we have is the writings and the claims that still do and understand things today in the same way they did back then. <br /><br />Protestants believe in the doctrinal things expressed in those first 4 Creeds on the 2 Natures of Christ and the Trinity, because they are based on clear Scripture, exegesis, theological harmony. <br /><br />I have been a missionary to Muslims since 1983; and I have seen Muslims think the baptism or the Lord's supper gives some kind of a blessing, etc. - but it does not unless there is true faith.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-49222687454398648932018-10-05T22:35:27.837-07:002018-10-05T22:35:27.837-07:00Hi Ken,
You wrote: "but of course, my whole...Hi Ken, <br /><br />You wrote: "but of course, my whole argument is that they were not right nor infallible on some things. (Particularly baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, Eucharist, church government".<br /><br />To me this is a great swathe of Early Christian belief and AFAIK all the 5 Sees of Authority agreed on these issues. Outside the New Testament, how are we to determine how Christians put faith into practise if we don't look at Tradition ? If that practise was corrupted, to even some degree, you need to show why no Councils were held to address these issues. As mentioned, Unity was in such high esteem (as it dovetailed into the unity of faith which confirmed the life of God in the believer), that any minor differences caused expulsions or labels of heresy.<br /><br />Take Donatis or Montanus for example. Not many differences in their faith & practise and they were labelled heretics. Or take some of the Oriental Orthodox handling of Christology where they were labelled heretics over what could simply be misunderstandings in language or cultural.<br /><br />So again to come along 1000s of years later and claim they got it wrong, is Infantile. Sorry, but from what I've read, none of the Reformers went deeply into the Patristic writings. They had the right intent to destroy corrupt practises and heretical beliefs but used the wrong "lense". "Sola Scritura", without reference to Holy Tradition, would only partially solve the problems they faced. I'm not sure about some of the other Reformers you mention but certainly Wycliffe, Zwingli & Calvin took and used the lense of "Sola Scritura" to apply their reforms.<br /><br />If the RCs are so corrupted, why are all the other Apostolic Sees in agreement on Baptism, Eucharist, Sacraments, and to some degree their view of a synergistic life of faith ? Even the RC after Vatican 2 began "looking East" and recognised they had minimalised the path of "theosis" which is the life of God in the believer.<br /><br />Christ's own will before laying His life down, was that we would come into unity with Him & the Father & that this would be passed to all believers. How can there be unity without agreement. He & the Father is One in all ways. <br /><br />To assert that this "Life of Faith" was incorrect by the time of the Church Fathers, leaves us nowhere. IF they stuffed up, what were the Ecumenical Councils for ? Just a political ploy ? Oppression of the Gnostics ? Was the ideal of being transformed into God's image just a fantasy ? Are we supposed to enter heaven with a pronouncement of "clean" but not have any change whatsoever ?<br /><br />Rather than building on what the Fathers had discovered and what the trajectory of the Holy Spirit started, they "wiped the slate clean" and tried to start again because they read the Scriptures individually. How is that "unity" ? It's unity with your own soul, not with the Body of Christ.<br /><br />Cheers<br />DennisDennishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13569322108527919446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-56305987391246924652018-10-05T04:43:51.257-07:002018-10-05T04:43:51.257-07:00Hi David,
Thanks for responses and links and remin...Hi David,<br />Thanks for responses and links and reminders.<br />I remember that we discussed these issues before (both 1. Mono-episcopate and 2. Sproul and Semi-Pelagianism)<br /><br />I confess at the time I don't think I kept up with your analysis of Bavinck and Berkouwer on Trent. At the time, I probably got busy with other things and forgot to read all of it, or did not think about it deep enough.<br /><br />I think I understand better now, however, for me, what is significant is the idea of Roman Catholic teaching on ex opere operato infant baptismal regeneration and initial justification that "heals the soul" (which I completely disagree with) so that as a child grows, he can freely choose the right way and continue in the faith until confirmation (another step in the 7 sacraments system of Roman Catholicism) . Do they believe a child can do penance before confirmation ?<br /><br />Anyway, what do you think the difference is between<br />1. Roman Catholic Synergism<br />vs.<br />2. Protestant Arminian Synergism <br /><br />??<br /><br />What is the difference between the 2 systems?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-62853643634491720392018-10-04T15:37:18.093-07:002018-10-04T15:37:18.093-07:00OOOPS...a typo in THIS COMMENT
>>The NT doe...OOOPS...a typo in <a href="http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2018/09/unity-and-christian-church-part-3b.html?showComment=1538682616029#c999085101612669997" rel="nofollow">THIS COMMENT</a><br /><br />>>The NT does inform us either way, but history certainly tells us that it continued, and that the these men were later termed exclusively as bishops.>> <br /><br />SHOULD READ:<br /><br />'The NT does NOT inform us either way, but history certainly tells us that it continued, and that the these men were later termed exclusively as bishops.'<br />David Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04577758667034909467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-28694713405652265882018-10-04T15:30:13.674-07:002018-10-04T15:30:13.674-07:00Ken:==R.C. Sproul quotes and discusses theologians...Ken:==R.C. Sproul quotes and discusses theologians Berkouer and Bavinck that Semi-Pelagianism was condemned at the Council of Orange in 529 AD, but basically says that it crept back in and grew and was common in the whole culture, then Wycliff and Hus and Luther saw the problems, and then a form of Semi-Pelagianism was re-affirmed at Trent, in response to the Reformation.==<br /><br />What dogmatic decree at Trent taught "a form of Semi-Pelagianism"? For a doctrine/teaching to be "Semi-Pelagian" it must contain a least one aspect of Pelagianism. <br /><br />In <a href="http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/search/label/Pelagianism" rel="nofollow">THIS THREAD</a>, I expose the misrepresentation of Sproul concerning the issue of Semi-Pelagianism. The following is from that thread:<br /><br />>> The major error in Sproul's assessments lies in the fact that he has incorrectly described/understood what actually constitutes semi-Pelagianism. This fact comes as shock to me, for a number of the scholars he has quoted (e.g. Berkouwer, Harnack, Schaff), in his two referenced books above, do define the distinguishing feature of semi-Pelagianism—i.e. the rejection of the belief that preceding/prevenient grace (<i>gratia praeveniens</i>) is necessary for one to accept the Gospel. Sproul has substituted this distinguishing feature of semi-Pelagianism with the notion that it is the rejection of "monergistic regeneration" that makes one's theology semi-Pelagian—to do so is either a case of dishonesty or very shoddy scholarship.>><br /><br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />David<br />David Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04577758667034909467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-14983663692828991192018-10-04T14:09:49.727-07:002018-10-04T14:09:49.727-07:00Ken,
Next up...
==The text of Acts 15 does not s...Ken,<br /><br />Next up...<br /><br />==The text of Acts 15 does not say James is the mono-episcopate or bishop or overseer, rather he is one of the elders (apostles and elders" - Acts 15:6. or even considered one of the apostles as in I Corinthians 15:7 and Galatians 1:19.==<br /><br />My argument for a three-fold ministry does not rely on James being termed, "the mono-episcopate or bishop or overseer". James is termed an apostle and elder just like others in the NT—e.g. Andronicus, Apollos, Barnabas. At some point, he took on the role of leadership and oversight of the numerous house churches in Jerusalem. What he is termed at that point—senior pastor, chairman, head bishop, etc.—has little bearing on the issue of a three-fold ministry. The real question is whether or not the pastors/elders/presbyters of the numerous house churches in Jerusalem considered him in a leadership role above them. Numerous Protestant scholars say YES. (See <a href="http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2015/02/james-just-leader-of-church-at-jerusalem.html" rel="nofollow">THIS THREAD</a> for examples.)<br /><br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />David<br />David Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04577758667034909467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-9990851016126699972018-10-04T12:50:16.029-07:002018-10-04T12:50:16.029-07:00Hi Ken,
I finally have some time for the internet...Hi Ken,<br /><br />I finally have some time for the internet. There is much to cover, and I am finding it a bit difficult trying to determine where to begin...I shall start with the issue of a three-fold ministry.<br /><br />You wrote: ==Ok, so Why did the apostles in the area of south Galatia, appoint a group of elders for each church (Acts 14:21) and leave them to function on their own?==<br /><br />I do not believe that the apostles left "them to function on their own". I am firmly convinced that they retained oversight over the churches/officers they founded/appointed. Once again, we have a three-fold ministry in place—apostles (also sometimes termed elders/presbyters), bishops (also sometimes termed elders/presbyters), and deacons. Ken, do you acknowledge this?<br /><br />Ken:==I can understand the point of when Paul speaks to Timothy and Titus, Timothy and Titus (Titus 1:5-7) seems to be the one who can be understood as functioning like a "mono-episcopate". ( 1 and 2 Timothy)<br /><br />But it seems that after the apostles died, that office ceased, and the data seems to favor more of a plurality of elders for each church, as Acts 14:21; Titus 1:5-7; Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Peter 5:1-4 indicate.== <br /><br />Andronicus, Apollos, Barnabas, Junias, Silas, Timothy, Titus were not apostles in the same sense that the Twelve and Paul were—in that they were appointed by Jesus—yet they carried out some of the functions of those apostles. What should be call them? How should we classify them? Some folk have used 'lieutenant apostles', which works for me. So, I would argue instead of a four-fold ministry, we have a three-fold, wherein one should classify men like Andronicus, Apollos, Barnabas, Junias, Silas, Timothy, Titus with the apostles (Andronicus , Apollos, Barnabas, Junias are actually termed apostles in the NT). Like the apostles they appointed bishops (also sometimes termed elders/presbyters) and kept oversight over them. Now, the question that needs to asked is: <b>did the function/office of men like Andronicus, Apollos, Barnabas, Junias, Silas, Timothy, Titus continue after the passing of the Twelve and Paul?</b> The NT does inform us either way, but history certainly tells us that it continued, and that the these men were later termed exclusively as bishops.<br /><br />Ken:== http://equip.sbts.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/sbjt_073_fall03_merkle.pdf<br /><br />Good article; and he quotes Lightfoot on elders and overseers being the same.==<br /><br />In the NT local elders/presbyters are also termed bishops/overseers. I have always maintained this, siding with Lightfoot on this issue. However, Merkle ignores the fact that Lightfoot held to the apostolic origin of a three-fold ministry, and that this three-fold ministry continued after the passing of the Twelve and Paul. That is the real issue at hand. I see nothing in the NT that indicates that the three-fold ministry was one that was to cease, but rather that it is the pattern for the Christian ministry that is to continue until the return of our Lord.<br /><br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />David<br />David Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04577758667034909467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-112351551923390862018-10-04T07:45:54.029-07:002018-10-04T07:45:54.029-07:00Also, in Scripture, sometimes, something does happ...Also, in Scripture, sometimes, something does happen when someone is baptized or at the laying on of hands (Acts 8:14-18; 19:6) or for a more incredible OT example - a dead body rose up when a man was cast into Elisha's grave and the dead body touched Elisha's bones. 2 Kings 13:21<br /><br />(Benny Hinn and other modern Charismatics and Pentecostals use those kinds of examples for justification of many of their practices today)<br /><br />See also Acts 5:15-16 and 19:11-12<br /><br />That those things happened is true is one thing. (historical narrative) But those texts never say "repeat that" or that "if you do such and such, grace and salvation will automatically happen", etc. <br /><br />We believe miracles when the inspired text says it happened; but that is different than believing that automatically something always happens (grace, salvation, etc.) when some physical action or ceremony is done. (baptism, Lord's supper, confirmation, laying on of hands)<br /><br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-90934599881634550652018-10-04T07:23:23.007-07:002018-10-04T07:23:23.007-07:00Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justifica...Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification, by R. C. Sproul. Baker, 1995. <br /><br />In chapter 7, entitled “Merit and Grace”, R. C. Sproul discusses the issues of merit and grace, Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism, the Council of Orange in 529 AD and the council of Trent (1545-1463), which seems to affirm semi-Pelagianism. <br /><br />“Rome has repeatedly been accused of condemning semi-Pelagianism at Orange [in 529 AD] but embracing it anew at Trent. <br />Herman Bavinck held that “although semi-Pelagianism had been condemned by Rome, it reappeared in a ‘roundabout way’”. G. C. Berkouwer observed:<br /><br />“Between Orange and Trent lies a long process of development, namely, scholasticism, with its elaboration of the doctrine of the meritoriousness of good works, and the Roman system of penitence . . . “<br />Bavinck and Berkouwer are cited by Sproul in Faith Alone, pages 140-141. <br /><br />The big Problem with the Council of Orange of 529 AD:<br />Baptismal Regeneration – that baptism in water causes regeneration and gives grace so one may then be able to choose Christ.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-71248449265577565182018-10-04T07:16:24.058-07:002018-10-04T07:16:24.058-07:00Part 2
Do you really believe they would maintai...Part 2<br /><br /> <i>Do you really believe they would maintain unity if someone began teaching a different version of baptism or the Eucharist ?</i> <br /><br />Since the splits of OO (issues of 431- 451 AD, and afterward) (Nestorianism and Monophysite) and the split of 1054 (EO), other developments in the west (Transubstantiation - from 800-1215 as dogma and then Aquinas' defense of it, etc. - I don't see how any kind of unity can be "should" practically done, especially since the Pope and Roman Catholic branch considers their understanding of the Eucharist as unchangable and infallible Dogma. <br /><br /><i>Each of these churches believe baptism is for the remission of sins and the Eucharist is the Real Presence of Christ in some type of materialised form. They all believe that Gods grace is actualised in material sacraments like water, bread, wine, oil. And why not. He made Himself incarnate. He is Lord over the material creation. This doesn't mean it negates the place of grace and faith in salvation or that salvation becomes automatic.</i><br /><br />I fail to see the jump from the incarnation, which all conservative bible believing Protestants believe, to the idea that grace is actualized through material sacraments as in baptism, Eucharist, etc. (water, bread, wine, oil) <br /><br />Anthony Lane makes a very interesting and insightful comment in his section on the Council of Orange in 529 AD (in his book, Exploring Christian Thought, page 81):<br /><br />"The canons [of the Council of Orange of 529 AD] affirm our need for grace, but this grace is tied to the sacraments. Free-will is healed by the grace of baptism. With the grace of baptism and the aid and co-operation of Jesus Christ, we have the power to do all that is necessary for salvation, if we so desire. By this time infant baptism was universal, so the teaching on grace [Augustine, bondage of the will, predestination, etc. - which is what the semi-Pelagians in southern France were discussing that lead to the Council of Orange] is pushed back to a forgotten infancy." (Tony Lane, Exploring Christian Thought, p. 81)<br /><br />I think that is key.<br /><br /><b>By this time infant baptism was universal, so the teaching on grace is pushed back to a forgotten infancy."</b><br /><br />R.C. Sproul quotes and discusses theologians Berkouer and Bavinck that Semi-Pelagianism was condemned at the Council of Orange in 529 AD, but basically says that it crept back in and grew and was common in the whole culture, then Wycliff and Hus and Luther saw the problems, and then a form of Semi-Pelagianism was re-affirmed at Trent, in response to the Reformation.<br /><br />See specific details in this article:<br /><br />http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/06/between-orange-and-trent.html<br /><br />I don't see where I used textual criticism or Strong's concordance or Matthew Henry's commentary.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com