The glaring contradiction that your school misses is that your pointing to the fathers for authoritative interpretation is quite different from the authority pointed to by the fathers themselves. You say (for example), “X is true because Athanasius said it,” while Athanasius said, “X is true because the Scripture teaches X.” Athanasius did not say, “X is true because Athanasius believes X.”

You are therefore at fundamental odds with the orientation of the fathers, while we stand with them at that most critical point.

As to the specific issue of particular redemption, your citations make the same mistake that Wesley in his polemical essay on the subject made in his endless listing of defeater-texts from the Bible. But they only defeat if the meaning of the text is actually contradictory to the doctrine, and therein is where the discussion should begin, not end. See John Murray’s essay on the free offer of the gospel, for example, to discover the richness of the Reformed view on these matters.

“If that were true, you should stop there, and direct us all to the apostolically authorized interpretation of Holy Scriptures.

Or do you claim such authority for yourself? I notice you did not stop there but proceeded with something that looked like an attempt to interpret Scripture.

Please clarify.”

My answer runs thus:

The scriptures were not “canonized” by the Apostles….or even the generation that immediately proceeded them. The documents existed in the Church, to be sure, for a variety of reasons and purposes. But it would be another 250 years later that the scriptures would be collected and authorized qua Apostolic authority. In the midst of various documents that contended for such authority, the Church only gave assent to the writings that now make up our 27 books of the New Testament.

Furthermore, the Church did give an interpretation to the Apostolic authority by it’s construction of the Creed (Nicene)….and the theological terminology (like “Trinity”) that continue to remain standards in discussions of Christianity.

So, it is right to say that the Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Church hold the “keys”…..by the Word of God Himself who promised them such.

Interestingly, the doctrine of “particular” redemption is conspicuously absent from the writings of the post-Apostolic Fathers of the Church, until Augustine.

There is consistent testimony against this doctrine, but I will only cite a few.

Hear what St. Clement, a companion and minister of St. Paul, has to say concerning “particular” redemption:

“Let us look steadfastly to the blood of Christ, and see how precious that blood is to God, which, having been shed for our salvation, has set the grace of repentance before the whole world”

from–First Epistle of Clement

Or Justin Martyr:

“For Christ called not the just nor the chaste to repentance, but the ungodly, and the licentious, and the unjust; His words being, ‘I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.’ For the heavenly Father desires rather the repentance than the punishment of the sinner.”

from–First Apology of Justin Martyr

Or Irenaeus:

“And from this fact, that He exclaimed upon the cross, ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do,’ the long-suffering, patience, compassion, and goodness of Christ are exhibited, since He both suffered, and did Himself exculpate those who had maltreated Him. For the Word of God, who said to us, ‘Love your enemies, and pray for those that hate you,’ Himself did this very thing upon the cross; loving the human race to such a degree, that He even prayed for those putting Him do death.”

from–”Against Heresies”

Or Athanasius:

“For His it was once more both to bring the corruptible to incorruption, and to maintain intact the just claim of the Father upon all. For being Word of the Father, and above all, He alone of natural fitness was both able to recreate everything, and worthy to suffer on behalf of all and to be ambassador for all with the Father”

from–”Incarnation of the Word”

Athanasius completes this chain of testimony, being himself a participant in the Council that decided upon the issue of the N.T. “canon” (Nicea, 325 A.D.).

I would like to know how the Reformation can have anything approaching “authority”, since it came 1200 years, or so, after the fact?

As far as the truth is concerned, the Reformation offered it’s own jaundiced hermeneutics as the foundation for it’s own system of theology…divorced from any historical tie with the Apostolic tradition; a “tradition”, that I already noted, which gave us the scriptures.

Appealing to the scriptures as the “final authority” makes little sense, since heretics always appeal to the scriptures. The real question of debate is over which “hermenetical” tradition would be closer to exemplifying the correct understanding of Christian doctrine: the one immediately proceeding the Apostles–some of whom were associates of the Apostles, like Clement and Polycarp–or the one 1400 years after the fact? Do we take the “lens” and testimony of the Church Fathers or the “lens” and testimony of the Reformers?

Tim has already pointed out under a different topic (I think) that he is only willing to consider certain sects as truly Protestant. Therefore, you have no right to say that it is doctrinal chaos because the various sects are fairly uniform in doctrine.

For example, you list those people who believe that baptism saves as being Protestant. Yet, Protestants would reject that those who affirm any work-salvation are within Protestantism.

You state, “Various groups and individuals within the Church who have disagreed with the de fide teaching of the Church have a name. They are called “heretics”.” Thus, you obtain a facade of unity by claiming that only those who adhere to W, X, Y, and Z are truly Catholic. Yet I know a catholic who does not adhere to the same doctrines as you do yet he still calls himself a Catholic.

Thus, it seems you are stacking the deck in your favor to say that Protestants do not have a right to define thier limits yet Catholics do. The Protsetant movement must be defined historically. An Independent-Baptist dispensationalist has cut himself off historically from Protestantism. So have the Charismatics etc… This significantly narrows the charge of chaos.

Why is your claim to unity so important? All you are saying is that those who agree with you agree with you… afterall, you cannot stop someone who disagrees with you from claiming to be a Catholic any more than I can stop an Independent-Baptist disper from calling himself Protestant. Does mere numerical agreement prove anything? After all, all Protestants agree about one thing: Roman Catholicism is not the true Church…. but what have I just demonstrated, other than a psychological state?

Actually, you do not have “one doctrine of baptism.” I don’t know much, but I know the doctrine of the “baptism of desire” for those who wanted to be baptized and couldn’t for one reason or another is not tought in Scripture. Neither is baptismal regeneration taught anymore than circumcisional regeneration. Many of the 1st century Jews were teaching such, and we have it on good authority that their souls were in great peril (Gal.1).

Further, and more in line with the original post, you spoke of the above as “a load of theological nonsense,” and yet, the writer is arguing for a sacrifice that actually saved (the writer of Hebrews says “perfected”) individuals. Rome would have us believe, contrary to the infallible book of Hebrews that Christ’s sacrifice must be repeated over and over. The problem Roman Catholics are left with is they have a sacrifice that can be repeated ad infinitum and they can partake of this sacrifice everyday of their lives and never be saved. The sacrifice of the mass never perfects anyone. This therefore cannot be the sacrifice of Christ, because it did perfect all those for whom it was given. That’s the very point of the Reformed doctrine of limited atonement.

Rome’s claims are very impressive (I for one am always impressed when fallible men have the stones to claim infallibility; that’s awesome), but I think I’ll stand where I’m at. Rome cannot claim the Scriptures as its foundation and then contradict them at such vital points.

For example (and a good one, I think), we have but one doctrine on baptism, that is — it saves. Yet within Protestantism, you will find a variety of teachings on what baptism is, how it is to be done, whether it saves or not (this is usually a HOT debate!) and a number of other issues.

Various groups and individuals within the Church who have disagreed with the de fide teaching of the Church have a name. They are called “heretics”. The teaching of the Church is quite plain and it is found in the Catholic Catechism. Unlike Protestantism, Catholic doctrine is not up for debate and it is not a popularity contest. You either believe it or you are a heretic in danger of damnation. Quite simple, really.

It is not a “claim” to be final arbitor. Jesus said that the Church would be built upon the rock of St. Peter, and that the Church would not be overcome by the gates of hell, which must mean that the doctrinal and moral teaching of the Petrine office must be free of error.

Can’t have it any other way.

How do you know that your chosen brand of Protestantism is 100% the right brand vs all other forms which disagree with your positions?

Brother Ed

At the time of the Council of Carthage, the church taught that none of the bishops were “prince of priests or first bishop.”

Honestly, I’m not qualified to go a great deal further, it just seems to me that the claim of papal infallibility and the exclusive rights of interpretation of Rome or even unanimity in doctrine are somewhat silly notions when the church’s teachings have changed (if even slightly, though I think more) over the years and various groups and individuals within the church have disagreed. How is that any different from the level of disagreement that exists in the protestant church? How does a fallible group like Rome settle the issue of disagreement? Claiming to be the final arbitor doesn’t make it so, and claiming infallibility just reduces it to a level rediculousness.

Thank you.

Brother Ed