tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993865619440350763.post4527835815756703515..comments2023-10-30T05:58:54.390-07:00Comments on Contra Gentes: The Eisegeted Verses, Acts 15 and the Jerusalem CouncilSaint and Sinnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993865619440350763.post-90669124231708539012007-10-13T15:18:00.000-07:002007-10-13T15:18:00.000-07:00Orthodox,"3. 4. Nunc se, si audent, superbae et tu...Orthodox,<BR/>"3. 4. Nunc se, si audent, superbae et tumidae cervices haereticorum adversus sanctam humilitatem huius sermonis extollant. Insani Donatistae, quos ad pacem atque unitatem sanctae Ecclesiae remeare, atque in ea sanari cupimus et optamus, quid ad haec dicitis? Vos certe nobis obicere soletis Cypriani litteras, Cypriani sententiam, Cypriani concilium: cur auctoritatem Cypriani pro vestro schismate assumitis, et eius exemplum pro Ecclesiae pace respuitis? Quis autem nesciat sanctam Scripturam canonicam, tam Veteris quam Novi Testamenti, certis suis terminis contineri, eamque omnibus posterioribus episcoporum litteris ita praeponi, ut de illa omnino dubitari et disceptari non possit, utrum verum vel utrum rectum sit, quidquid in ea scriptum esse constiterit: episcoporum autem litteras quae post confirmatum canonem vel scriptae sunt vel scribuntur, et per sermonem forte sapientiorem cuiuslibet in ea re peritioris, et per aliorum episcoporum graviorem auctoritatem doctioremque prudentiam, et per concilia licere reprehendi, si quid in eis forte a veritate deviatum est: et ipsa concilia quae per singulas regiones vel provincias fiunt, plenariorum conciliorum auctoritati quae fiunt ex universo orbe christiano, sine ullis ambagibus cedere: ipsaque plenaria saepe priora a posterioribus emendari; cum aliquo experimento rerum aperitur quod clausum erat, et cognoscitur quod latebat; sine ullo typho sacrilegae superbiae, sine ulla inflata cervice arrogantiae, sine ulla contentione lividae invidiae, cum sancta humilitate, cum pace catholica, cum caritate christiana?"<BR/><BR/><I>emendari,</I> from <I>emendare</I> I believe, although I do not have the grammar I need. This is rendered "corrected" or "improved" as the two primary meanings. I believe Augustine would have chosen a different verb, e.g., <I>refellere, redarguere, revincere, refutare,</I> if he had meant "refute," as another translation has it. I have next to no competence in Latin, though. Please ask someone with formal study what they think. I will too, and get back to you.Mike Burgesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00854620298988801571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993865619440350763.post-54378201002295474362007-10-12T16:19:00.000-07:002007-10-12T16:19:00.000-07:00It might be interesting to see the Latin, but I wo...It might be interesting to see the Latin, but I would take it that Augustine is talking about "correcting" in the sense of filling in gaps of earlier councils that weren't fully discussed because, as he says a few paragraphs later:<BR/><BR/>"For how could a matter which was involved in such mists of disputation even have been brought to the full illumination and authoritative decision of a plenary Council, had it not first been known to be discussed for some considerable time in the various districts of the world, with many discussions and comparisons of the views of the bishop on every side? But this is one effect of the soundness of peace, that when any doubtful points are long under investigation, and when, on account of the difficulty of arriving at the truth, they produce difference of opinion in the course of brotherly disputation, till men at last arrive at the unalloyed truth".<BR/><BR/>Now if when the matter has been extensively discussed in the whole world, one arrives at the "unalloyed truth", clearly that is irreformable. I can only conclude that his earlier comment is regarding matters that weren't discussed in clarity.orthodoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09445301151975209564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993865619440350763.post-84968918145346816712007-10-12T15:26:00.000-07:002007-10-12T15:26:00.000-07:00You make much repeated use of men like Athanasius ...You make much repeated use of men like Athanasius and Chrisostom ... but have You ever actually read them?The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993865619440350763.post-24263076382879620092007-10-12T12:22:00.000-07:002007-10-12T12:22:00.000-07:00Am I the only one hearing Twilight Zone's theme so...Am I the only one hearing Twilight Zone's theme song? A Southern Baptist telling us what Augustine meant about an Ecumenical Council, regional councils, local councils, and letters of Bishops -- all about infant baptism? And a sacramental, regenerative baptism that could not be repeated? And that should not be administered in schism but was still valid nonetheless? <BR/><BR/>Augustine, I still maintain, is clear (from the subsequent chapter I quoted) that issues can be resolved "beyond all doubt" by plenary councils of the whole world. If there is no more room for doubt, how is that fallible? Please, please, please tell me what weird definition of infallible you have to be using.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, back to the question of the Jerusalem council, the letter <I>was</I> drafted by the Apostles and elders. (Cf 15:41, "And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches, commanding them to keep the precepts of the Apostles and the ancients," Rheims. Jerusalem Bible notes 15:41 in the Western Text contains the addition and compare it with 16:4, which see.)<BR/><BR/>If you seriously want to assert that the early Church allowed women to participate, by all means, go ahead. <BR/><BR/>My sarcasm in mentioning "modern" authorities was apparently lost on you. I was making a play on "modern," not contemporary. I am not familiar with Schatz' work, but, to be frank, I am looking forward to further inquiry and development in the area of Petrine primacy as it pertains to reunion with the Eastern Churches from Benedict XVI. I presume you've heard about his recent remarks in this regard. I do not go into it with the mindset that there are insurmountable problems, and I do not believe those in authority do either. <BR/><BR/>I am going to comment on the orthodoxy/orthopraxy thread now.Mike Burgesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00854620298988801571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993865619440350763.post-89473362317590594232007-10-12T11:11:00.000-07:002007-10-12T11:11:00.000-07:00"Now that you've been clearly shown that there is ..."Now that you've been clearly shown that there is a difference between a regional plenary council and a plenary council of the whole world, I hope we get a retraction."<BR/><BR/>Orthodox,<BR/><BR/>Yes, Augustine believed in many kinds of plenary councils.<BR/><BR/>However, he differentiated between plenary councils of "the whole of Africa at Hippo-Regius" and plenary councils "formed for the whole Christian world".<BR/><BR/>The latter is the one he refers to in the quote that I cited. Also, if you'll notice, he cites no higher council than a plenary council "formed for the whole Christian world". If there was one, he would have cited it in order to show that it could correct the other kinds of plenary councils.<BR/><BR/>Here's the quote again:<BR/><BR/>"and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of ***plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them***, when, by some actual experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed, and that is known which previously lay hid"<BR/><BR/>In the context of the quote, the plenary Councils which are "corrected" by later ones are the same plenary Councils which are formed "for the whole Christian world" in the previous sentence. Or, it could be the case that he just lumped all plenary councils into one and viewed their authority as the same.Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993865619440350763.post-20056290798899359842007-10-11T20:52:00.000-07:002007-10-11T20:52:00.000-07:00S&S: He clearly believes that newer ecumenical cou...S&S: He clearly believes that newer ecumenical councils can correct the doctrines of older ones.<BR/><BR/>O: Now that you've been clearly shown that there is a difference between a regional plenary council and a plenary council of the whole world, I hope we get a retraction.orthodoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09445301151975209564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993865619440350763.post-44579076891497752352007-10-11T20:48:00.000-07:002007-10-11T20:48:00.000-07:00S&S: Orthodox, a plenary council IS an ecumenical ...S&S: Orthodox, a plenary council IS an ecumenical council.<BR/><BR/>O: No it isn't, at least in Augustine's language.<BR/><BR/>"As to the people of Vigesile, who are to us as well as to you beloved in the bowels of Christ, if they have refused to accept a bishop who has been deposed by a plenary Council in Africa,437 they act wisely, and cannot be compelled to yield, nor ought to be." - Letter LXIV<BR/><BR/>Here a plenary council is an Africa only council.<BR/><BR/>"About the same period, in presence of the bishops, who gave me orders to that effect, and who were holding a plenary Council of the whole of Africa at Hippo-Regius, I delivered, as presbyter, a discussion on the subject of Faith and the Creed. " -- Retractions.orthodoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09445301151975209564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993865619440350763.post-32628660589686356722007-10-11T20:40:00.000-07:002007-10-11T20:40:00.000-07:00Mike:I was thinking the same thing but couldn't fi...Mike:I was thinking the same thing but couldn't find the citation I needed. Orthodox, do you have it?<BR/><BR/>O: Sure:<BR/><BR/>"the several statutes of their Councils in their different districts long varied from each other, till at length the most wholesome opinion was established, to the removal of all doubts, by a plenary Council of the whole world" - on baptism, against the donatists, book I, chapter 7.<BR/><BR/>"the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world;" ibid, Book II, Ch 3orthodoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09445301151975209564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993865619440350763.post-23475444683305123202007-10-11T19:34:00.000-07:002007-10-11T19:34:00.000-07:00Lastly, you must take into account that he said th...Lastly, you must take into account that he said this:<BR/><BR/>"and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual experiment, things are *brought to light* [see below] which were before concealed, and that is known which previously lay hid"<BR/><BR/>Notice how he uses the same words and phrases such as "...brought to light..." when speaking (in the paragraph you cited) about Cyprian's doctrines being later proved to be in error as he does (in the above paragraph) when speaking about previous plenary councils being "corrected". He clearly believes that newer ecumenical councils can correct the doctrines of older ones.Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993865619440350763.post-55690492962321472162007-10-11T19:26:00.000-07:002007-10-11T19:26:00.000-07:00"The plenary council of the whole world is capable..."The plenary council of the whole world is capable of settling the question beyond all doubt. The plenary council of the whole world is thus irreformable."<BR/><BR/>Mike,<BR/><BR/>Your reading *into* his words infallibility. He is saying that Cyprian probably would have conceded if the whole world of the church was against him. This is an ad populum argument, not an argument from the infallibility of ecumenical councils.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, he argues that bishops of an earlier age may have held certain things to be true, but after theological debate and reflection over the subsequent ages, those certain opinions may come to light as being in error.<BR/><BR/>Augustine knew this personally since during and after his debate with Pelagius and Coelestius, he changed his doctrine of free-will and predestination dramatically.<BR/><BR/>Augustine's examples of changes in theological opinion and disregarding previously long-held theological tradition in the church became one of the Reformation's biggest arguments against blindly following church tradition, no matter how long it was held.Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993865619440350763.post-58990690193458351072007-10-11T15:46:00.000-07:002007-10-11T15:46:00.000-07:00I wonder if you read the next chapter:"Nor should ...I wonder if you read the next chapter:<BR/>"Nor should we ourselves venture to assert anything of the kind, were we not supported by the unanimous authority of the whole Church, to which he himself would unquestionably have yielded, if at that time the truth of this question had been placed beyond dispute by the investigation and decree of a plenary Council. For if he quotes Peter as an example for his allowing himself quietly and peacefully to be corrected by one junior colleague, how much more readily would he himself, with the Council of his province, have yielded to the authority of the whole world, when the truth had been thus brought to light? For, indeed, so holy and peaceful a soul would have been most ready to assent to the arguments of any single person who could prove to him the truth; and perhaps he even did so, though we have no knowledge of the fact. For it was neither possible that all the proceedings which took place between the bishops at that time should have been committed to writing, nor are we acquainted with all that was so committed. For how could a matter which was involved in such mists of disputation even have been brought to the full illumination and authoritative decision of a plenary Council, had it not first been known to be discussed for some considerable time in the various districts of the world, with many discussions and comparisons of the views of the bishop on every side? But this is one effect of the soundness of peace, that when any doubtful points are long under investigation, and when, on account of the difficulty of arriving at the truth, they produce difference of opinion in the course of brotherly disputation, till men at last arrive at the unalloyed truth; yet the bond of unity remains, lest in the part that is cut away there should be found the incurable wound of deadly error."<BR/>The plenary council of the whole world is capable of settling the question beyond all doubt. The plenary council of the whole world is thus irreformable.Mike Burgesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00854620298988801571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993865619440350763.post-9859684037626814342007-10-11T12:12:00.000-07:002007-10-11T12:12:00.000-07:00"That Chrysostom?"If you read ALL of Chrysostom, y..."That Chrysostom?"<BR/><BR/>If you read ALL of Chrysostom, you will (hopefully) come to a far different conclusion than what is fed to you by Roman Catholic apologists.<BR/><BR/>"You're not going to score points with me by appealing to "modern" authorities. :)"<BR/><BR/>In times past, the only church historians in the Roman church were also apologists. Both the Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox were quite annoyed every time an RC apologist would rip a church father out of context by citing a single quote and not taking the rest of the father's writings into account.<BR/><BR/>Nowadays, there are men like Klaus Schatz (whom I believe to be a conservative Roman Catholic) who recognize that the bishop of Rome held only a primacy of honor amongst the bishops of the early church and not a primacy of authority.<BR/><BR/>Now, the only people who argue that Rome held a primacy of authority in the early church are Roman Catholic lay apologists.<BR/><BR/>"Verse 6 does. Verse 6 says who were called together to discuss the matter."<BR/><BR/>And yet, the whole church participated in the end. They may not have written the letter personally, but they approved.<BR/><BR/>"There were women in the "whole Church," were there not? Are you suggesting they participated?"<BR/><BR/>Possibly.<BR/><BR/>"And, again, this "with the whole Church" refers directly to the decision to send Judas and Silas with Paul and Barnabas. That's what the text says."<BR/><BR/>You're ignoring what I wrote. I made the case that the "they" in verse 23 (the "they" who wrote the letter) refers to "the apostles, and the elders, with the whole church").<BR/><BR/>"I already read Schaff, and I already said he got it wrong."<BR/><BR/>Not the Schaff quote from this post, but from the last one. In support of his assertion, he points out that episkopos and presbyteros are used interchangeably in the same section of Scripture. He also points out that there were several episkopos at Philippi. He also cites several church fathers. Do you have any reasons for why he got it wrong.<BR/><BR/>"You are wrong in saying there was no sacerdotal priesthood until Cyprian. Gratuitous assertions can be gratuitously denied."<BR/><BR/>Every church historian I read on the subject has said this. I'll not get into this topic now. Suffice it to say that I stand behind my assertion that a presbyter in the immediate post-apostolic church was what a church elder is in many Protestant churches today.<BR/><BR/>"Jesus gave the Apostles His authority, but that does not mean they became God. The Apostles gave their successors the same authority, but this does not mean that they became Apostles. All of them can proclaim the truth infallibly."<BR/><BR/>The issue on this post is whether you can prove this from Acts 15. You have never shown this from Acts 15 (or any other Scripture) that bishops as an ecumenical congregate are infallible.<BR/><BR/>"Because of Christ's promises of perpetual presence both of Himself and of the Holy Spirit, the Church is "the house of truth," as Irenaus said. He also said " Where the Church is, there is also the Spirit of God, and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace; but the Spirit is truth.""<BR/><BR/>I may have to start a new series: "Patristic Anachronisms".<BR/><BR/>"So, was Augustine wrong or right about plenary councils, and how do you know?"<BR/><BR/>It doesn't matter how I know whether he was right or wrong. I was providing an internal critique of your own epistemological system. Your system is bound to (or at least appeals to) the unanimous consent of the church fathers. You don't have Augustine on this issue, and so, your argument from Tradition as found in the early church is weakened (severely, I might add since Augustine was probably the most prolific theologian of the West).<BR/><BR/>"Augustine believed a plenary council could be an aggregate of a region, a la an African synod. He also believed there were plenary councils of the whole world. These were irreformable, and, I believe, able to remove all doubt."<BR/><BR/>Read it again:<BR/><BR/>"...and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of ***plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world****..."<BR/><BR/>Plenary councils are formed for the "whole Christian world". It couldn't be any clearer, man!Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993865619440350763.post-21422873648660038122007-10-11T09:21:00.000-07:002007-10-11T09:21:00.000-07:00S&S, Augustine believed a plenary council could be...S&S, <BR/>Augustine believed a plenary council could be an aggregate of a region, a la an African synod. He also believed there were plenary councils of the whole world. These were irreformable, and, I believe, able to remove all doubt.Mike Burgesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00854620298988801571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993865619440350763.post-13582714469352676532007-10-11T09:02:00.000-07:002007-10-11T09:02:00.000-07:00Orthodox said, "O: So does this mean people have "...Orthodox said, "O: So does this mean people have "libertarian freedom" in all other matters? If so, didn't all that Calvinism philosophy just fall on its head? If not, isn't all the accusations about libertarian freedom against the other side, just a lot of hot air?"<BR/><BR/>Synergism in the Christian life does not necessitate libertarianism. If you want to get into a philosophical debate over libertarianism vs. compatibilism, then talk to Gene.<BR/><BR/>Augustine made the distinction between the free-will enslaved (liberum arbitrium captivatum) in the unregenerate and the free-will which has been freed by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. Though I don't agree with all the ins and outs of this distinction, the idea is the same.<BR/><BR/>"O: But not ecumenical councils. Augustine says that a plenary council of the whole world cannot be corrected."<BR/><BR/>Orthodox, a plenary council IS an ecumenical council.<BR/><BR/>"O: Whereupon Augustine comes up with his rather novel "force them to come in" argument about the Donatists based on I think, Mt 22:9. Not exactly a great advertisment for sola scriptura."<BR/><BR/>Augustine believed in the use of force to destroy heresy, yes. However, he believed that Donatism was a heresy and could be proven so by the clear statements of Scripture, and yes, his interpretation of Matt. 22:9 was bad.Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993865619440350763.post-82468460216906710882007-10-11T05:28:00.000-07:002007-10-11T05:28:00.000-07:00O: But not ecumenical councils. Augustine says tha...O: But not ecumenical councils. Augustine says that a plenary council of the whole world cannot be corrected.<BR/><BR/>I was thinking the same thing but couldn't find the citation I needed. Orthodox, do you have it?Mike Burgesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00854620298988801571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993865619440350763.post-38946215088130952262007-10-10T20:26:00.000-07:002007-10-10T20:26:00.000-07:00"In those days Peter rose up in the midst of the d..."In those days Peter rose up in the midst of the disciples (Acts 15), both as being ardent, and as intrusted by Christ with the flock ...he first acts with authority in the matter, as having all put into his hands ; for to him Christ said, 'And thou, being converted, confirm thy brethren.'" (Chrysostom, Hom. iii Act Apost. tom. ix.)<BR/><BR/>That Chrysostom? <BR/><BR/>"...modern church historians, Roman Catholic included."<BR/><BR/>You're not going to score points with me by appealing to "modern" authorities. :)<BR/><BR/>"Verse 28 says nothing about who wrote the letter. During the apostolic church, some of the members of the laity were prophets who received direct revelation from God."<BR/><BR/>Verse 6 does. Verse 6 says who were called together to discuss the matter. Then, when it was all settled, the letter with their "decrees" was sent with Paul and his companions for the Antiochenes, Syrians, and Cilicians to observe. How many layman make decrees in pre-modern times, by the way? And verse 6 is temporally and grammatically antecedent to 22, 23, and 28.<BR/><BR/>"Even if you are right about who decided on the doctrine, the fact that the "whole church" at least participated proves that the laity may participate in councils."<BR/><BR/>There were women in the "whole Church," were there not? Are you suggesting they participated? Or should we see this as a federal statement? Could we? And, again, this "with the whole Church" refers directly to the decision to send Judas and Silas with Paul and Barnabas. That's what the text says.<BR/><BR/>"It depends on what time period. Read the Schaff quote in my response to Dave on 1 Tim. 3:15. Secondly, the idea of the sacerdotal priesthood did not arise until the time of Cyprian."<BR/><BR/>I already read Schaff, and I already said he got it wrong. You are wrong in saying there was no sacerdotal priesthood until Cyprian. Gratuitous assertions can be gratuitously denied.<BR/><BR/>"Correct. Now, once you have stated that the post-apostolic church is not an exact replica of the apostolic one, the burden of proof is on you to prove that ecumenical councils are infallible."<BR/><BR/>Jesus gave the Apostles His authority, but that does not mean they became God. The Apostles gave their successors the same authority, but this does not mean that they became Apostles. All of them can proclaim the truth infallibly. Councils operate differently in that they have had authority given to them from the Apostles to rule and to teach, and to whom we must submit. The exercise of infallibility is active in Her pastors and passive in Her membership as a whole. Because of Christ's promises of perpetual presence both of Himself and of the Holy Spirit, the Church is "the house of truth," as Irenaus said. He also said " Where the Church is, there is also the Spirit of God, and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace; but the Spirit is truth." This is why the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. God gave His revelation, especially of the New Covenant, through men. He continues to lead through men. This is how he established things.<BR/><BR/>So, was Augustine wrong or right about plenary councils, and how do you know?Mike Burgesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00854620298988801571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993865619440350763.post-24905819196113107922007-10-10T20:01:00.000-07:002007-10-10T20:01:00.000-07:00G: This is comical. One the one hand you want to d...G: This is comical. One the one hand you want to defer to the authority of the Church in order to establish the canon and your doctrine, but on the other you want to castigate those who deny the results of the elders of your communion and claim their rule of faith results in anarchy.<BR/><BR/>O: Huh? Once it is accepted by the whole church, THEN it is a done deal. Your argument seems to be, let's revisit the decision of the Jerusalem council, even though it was agreed by the "whole church" as S&S wants to argue.orthodoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09445301151975209564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993865619440350763.post-38278736053234009972007-10-10T19:58:00.000-07:002007-10-10T19:58:00.000-07:00S&S: As to your first post, I know of no Calvinist...S&S: As to your first post, I know of no Calvinist work, whether Confession, systematic theology, other theology book, etc. that denies that sanctification is synergistic.<BR/><BR/>O: So does this mean people have "libertarian freedom" in all other matters? If so, didn't all that Calvinism philosophy just fall on its head? If not, isn't all the accusations about libertarian freedom against the other side, just a lot of hot air?<BR/><BR/>S&S: Augustine then lists several things that need to be corrected because they "stray from the truth": individual bishops, local councils, and plenary councils.<BR/><BR/>O: But not ecumenical councils. Augustine says that a plenary council of the whole world cannot be corrected.<BR/><BR/>S&S: The Donatists had a great precedent in their doctrine. Augustine's argument was that, even though it was part of tradition (and quite 'catholic' back in the time of Cyprian), it could be corrected since Scripture alone is infallible and can correct someone of the past.<BR/><BR/>O: Whereupon Augustine comes up with his rather novel "force them to come in" argument about the Donatists based on I think, Mt 22:9. Not exactly a great advertisment for sola scriptura.orthodoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09445301151975209564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993865619440350763.post-66833874923284186802007-10-10T19:36:00.000-07:002007-10-10T19:36:00.000-07:00Gene,"Thank you for this statement. I've seen too ...Gene,<BR/><BR/>"Thank you for this statement. I've seen too many Presbyterians press the Jer. Council too far as if it excludes something like a Baptist Association."<BR/><BR/>Actually, I'm a credo, and I attend a Southern Baptist church which isn't very friendly toward Calvinism.Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993865619440350763.post-59400972017521199972007-10-10T19:29:00.000-07:002007-10-10T19:29:00.000-07:00Mike,"References please? This is a mighty assertio...Mike,<BR/><BR/>"References please? This is a mighty assertion."<BR/><BR/>Witness: Chrysostom.<BR/><BR/>"It is not borne out by subsequent history."<BR/><BR/>This is an assertion that can be falsified by simply reading modern church historians, Roman Catholic included.<BR/><BR/>"That it was the Apostles and the elders who drafted it is apparent from the text of the letter as seen in v. 28."<BR/><BR/>Verse 28 says nothing about who wrote the letter. During the apostolic church, some of the members of the laity were prophets who received direct revelation from God.<BR/><BR/>In verse 23 it says that "and they..." Who is "they"? Trace it back to verse 22, and the "they" refers to "the apostles and the elders, with the whole church". Next, it says that they "sent" the letter. Actually, the Greek is literally (i.e. this appears in the margin of the NASB) "they wrote by their hand", implying that the laity at least approved of the letter.<BR/><BR/>Even if you are right about who decided on the doctrine, the fact that the "whole church" at least participated proves that the laity may participate in councils.<BR/><BR/>"I doubt seriously that you will assert that your elders were the same as the early Church's. No sacerdotal priesthood, yours."<BR/><BR/>It depends on what time period. Read the Schaff quote in my response to Dave on 1 Tim. 3:15. Secondly, the idea of the sacerdotal priesthood did not arise until the time of Cyprian.<BR/><BR/>"The successors of the Bishops have never claimed that they can deliver new revelatory material. This does not mean their authority, which was bestowed upon them by the Apostles and their successors, is a different authority, but is a more limited version of the authority given by Christ."<BR/><BR/>Correct. Now, once you have stated that the post-apostolic church is not an exact replica of the apostolic one, the burden of proof is on you to prove that ecumenical councils are infallible.<BR/><BR/>You can't just say, like DA, that ecumenical councils are infallible simply b/c an apostolic council was infallible. Since there are obvious differences between apostolic and post-apostolic ecclesiologies, namely the lack of infallible apostles (which Protestants assert made the Jerusalem council infallible), it is up to you to prove your ecclesiology.<BR/><BR/>If DA's argument was correct, it would lead to Anabaptistry instead of stopping at Roman Catholicism.<BR/><BR/>"If it did, Athanasius wouldn't have said "but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly,""<BR/><BR/>Your turning the text on its head. He is talking about the bishops wanting to convene a council in order to present a unified front in proclaiming what they believe and in their opposition to heresy. He is not talking about a council clarifying Scripture. He had already stated that Scripture was clear enough without the council.<BR/><BR/>Read the original:<BR/>http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxii.ii.i.html (part 6)<BR/><BR/>"But I don't recall anyone in the Catholic Church saying that Scripture doesn't say that Christ is divine, but that the interpreter He established makes clear what the proper reading necessitates."<BR/><BR/>Again, you're turning the text on its head. Of course no father denied that Scripture proclaimed the Deity of Christ. What Athanasius is saying in addition to this is that Scripture is clear WITHOUT the need of that "interpreter".<BR/><BR/>"But I stand by my assertion of the proper understanding of Augustine on ecumenical councils."<BR/><BR/>You'd have to turn the text on its head in order to do so.<BR/><BR/>"In your view, though, Augustine was one of those bishops who could very well have been wrong in this matter."<BR/><BR/>Yip. Shall I quote Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms?Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993865619440350763.post-74138000409245045122007-10-10T15:18:00.000-07:002007-10-10T15:18:00.000-07:00S&S,"As to your first post, I know of no Calvinist...S&S,<BR/>"As to your first post, I know of no Calvinist work, whether Confession, systematic theology, other theology book, etc. that denies that sanctification is synergistic. Only the effectual calling is irresistible. People (including Christians) resist the Holy Spirit and God's grace all the time. However, the power of regeneration is irresistible."<BR/><BR/>But you said that the Holy Spirit, in leading people to the truth, could be resisted. The Holy Spirit doesn't lead the unregenerate to the truth, or even start to do so. This touches on effectual calling, which is why I referenced WLC Q&A #4. <BR/><BR/>"However, there were many in the early church that believed that Peter was God's tool to start the Church at Pentecost and open the door to the gentiles, but after that, James, when he became a believer, became the head of the Church. To many in the early church, Peter was considered a preacher and a missionary like the rest of the apostles. He was a special one, yes, but not the head of the Church." <BR/><BR/>References please? This is a mighty assertion. It is not borne out by subsequent history.<BR/><BR/>"They also sent the *letter* which was the "conciliar decree" which is what was inspired by the Spirit (v.28)."<BR/><BR/>I didn't deny this, so I don't know why you're saying it. But verse 22, again, says "Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas--Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas," so what seemed good to the apostles and elders with the whole church was to send the missionaries with the letter the Apostles and elders had already drafted. That it was the Apostles and the elders who drafted it is apparent from the text of the letter as seen in v. 28. Follow Egomakarias if you want. Ask him to show you the autograph of Luke's Acts which is identical to the Textus Receptus, I guess.<BR/><BR/>"The word for "elder", here, is literally translated "presbyter" which according to Roman Catholicism is a basic priest. Basic priests aren't allowed to participate in the conciliar debate, frame the issues, or vote. This makes this council closer to Presbyterianism."<BR/><BR/>We know, and Catholics acknowledge, that there was overlap in early Church terminology. I doubt seriously that you will assert that your elders were the same as the early Church's. No sacerdotal priesthood, yours. <BR/><BR/>"So you admit that the post-apostolic authority of today is different from the apostolic authority of the first decades of the church age? The apostolic church serves as a model, but the church for today can only be similar, not the *exact* same."<BR/><BR/>The successors of the Bishops have never claimed that they can deliver new revelatory material. This does not mean their authority, which was bestowed upon them by the Apostles and their successors, is a different authority, but is a more limited version of the authority given by Christ. the Church is indwelt by the same Christ, so it is one Body yesterday, today, and forever. The Church is what it is because of Whose She is. If you believe you're in a similar but different church, you may be right.<BR/><BR/>"You know that I'm not an Appalachian wacko. Do you want me to compare you to the wacko cults down in South America that are spin-offs of RCism?"<BR/><BR/>I was merely pointing out that you were proving too much. If the successors, due to the fact that Christ's witness was sufficiently established by Apostolic miracles, do not need miraculous powers to have the same authority in a more limited role, then neither do you and I need to handle cottonmouths to prove our membership in Christ's Church. That's all.<BR/><BR/>"It proves that the Bible was clear enough to easily see the Deity of Christ proclaimed from its pages (contra most Roman Catholic apologists who believe that Nicaea was necessary to make the doctrine dogmatic)."<BR/><BR/>If it did, Athanasius wouldn't have said "but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly," unless you are asserting Athanasius was a free-church congregationalist, I suppose. But I don't recall anyone in the Catholic Church saying that Scripture doesn't say that Christ is divine, but that the interpreter He established makes clear what the proper reading necessitates.<BR/><BR/>"Augustine then lists several things that need to be corrected because they "stray from the truth": individual bishops, local councils, and plenary councils. Local councils can correct individual bishops, plenary councils can correct local ones, and plenary councils can correct older plenary councils. The issue is the correction of doctrinal error, not practice or unclarity or non-comprehensiveness of the decrees of previous councils."<BR/><BR/>I don't think that's a good reading of things. In the first place, we affirm individual bishops can be wrong. We affirm local councils are not infallible necessarily. But I stand by my assertion of the proper understanding of Augustine on ecumenical councils. <BR/><BR/>In your view, though, Augustine was one of those bishops who could very well have been wrong in this matter.Mike Burgesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00854620298988801571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993865619440350763.post-29726706016805183882007-10-10T14:38:00.000-07:002007-10-10T14:38:00.000-07:00Egomakarias,I will not test S&S's patience by init...Egomakarias,<BR/>I will not test S&S's patience by initiating a discussion of the merits or lack thereof of the Textus Receptus, and, frankly, I would be out of my depth to get into it too much. Suffice to say I believe I am safely on the side of the Fathers such as Jerome, Clement of Alexandria (who did not include the Johannine Comma in his Scriptural refutations of the Arians), and others. The controversy will not be settled by you and I, but this isn't the first time Erasmus generated such controversy. Interesting which course he eventually took: submission to the successors of the Apostles.Mike Burgesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00854620298988801571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993865619440350763.post-86455772089331744242007-10-10T13:14:00.000-07:002007-10-10T13:14:00.000-07:00The question involved was one not merely of practi...<I>The question involved was one not merely of practice, but of soterology. 15:1 makes that very clear, saying "Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”" So it did in fact have to do with orthodoxy.</I><BR/><BR/>However, the question was over a particular set of practices: conformity to the Law. So, it was on this basis that the council affirmed justification by faith alone. The doctrinal component is there by implication, not explication.<BR/><BR/><I>"Are you denying irresistible grace in denying that the Holy Spirit could start out leading and moving someone to the truth through Scripture but could be thwarted by that person's sinful pride, confusion, lack of prayer, lack of preparation, etc?" (Mike Burgess)<BR/><BR/>Did you have to turn a very simple subject into a complicated philosophical debate? That's what Calvinism is, after all, philosophy. Scripture nowhere says that grace is irresistable. This is a manmade philosophy, and surely the very sort that Paul warns against in Colossians 2:8 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." And certainly Calvinists like no others are in the business of "doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings" as Paul says in 1 Timothy 6:4.<BR/><BR/>That the Holy Spirit is resistable is PLAINLY stated in Scripture, to the utter confundation of Calvinism, where the martyr Stephen tells the Jews "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye" in Acts 7:51.</I><BR/><BR/>Egomakrikos has committed an elementary error. "Irresistible grace" refers to effectual calling, eg. "regeneration" not anything broader.<BR/><BR/>Further, if Calvinism is a "philosophy" that's a charge of "rationalism." Around what central plank is Calvinism constructed and where is the proof?GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993865619440350763.post-37034566145366543832007-10-10T13:07:00.000-07:002007-10-10T13:07:00.000-07:00O: Bzzzt, wrong. While it's hard to fit 300 millio...<I>O: Bzzzt, wrong. While it's hard to fit 300 million Orthodox Christians into a convention centre, all Christians have a responsibility to respond to and affirm (or deny) the results of any council of church elders.</I><BR/><BR/>This is comical. One the one hand you want to defer to the authority of the Church in order to establish the canon and your doctrine, but on the other you want to castigate those who deny the results of the elders of your communion and claim their rule of faith results in anarchy.<BR/><BR/>You really are making this up as you go along, aren't you?GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993865619440350763.post-31302804934976282912007-10-10T13:04:00.000-07:002007-10-10T13:04:00.000-07:00Lastly, and again, the decision was made by the en...<I>Lastly, and again, the decision was made by the entire church: apostles, presbyters, and laity, not just the apostles (or the apostles’ successors as Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy teach). So, it proves the exact opposite of what Mr. Armstrong wants it to, namely a presbyterian or congregational style of church governance.</I><BR/><BR/>Thank you for this statement. I've seen too many Presbyterians press the Jer. Council too far as if it excludes something like a Baptist Association.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.com