tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post5420361870252581128..comments2023-10-05T08:25:13.232-04:00Comments on Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Reply to Jason Engwer's Post, "The Canon and Church Infallibility" (Disproof of Catholic Development of Doctrine?), Pt. IDave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-29364601858497537052010-01-17T12:27:16.202-05:002010-01-17T12:27:16.202-05:00I wasn't referring to St. Basil, but to the fo...I wasn't referring to St. Basil, but to the following info:<br /><br />"The Church is opposed to divorce in principle and sees it as a failure and an evil. However, . . . Jesus did not prohibit all divorces . . . In the year 541 a law was passed by the state (Novel 117) and was later made a ruling of both the Church and the state which recognized several reasons for divorce, all of which presupposed the breakdown of the unity of the couple, corresponding to physical death and adultery. These reasons have since become expanded somewhat, but it is always a sad and sorrowful thing for the Church to acknowledge the end of a marriage."<br /><br />(Orthodox scholar, Fr. Stanley S. Harakas, <i>The Orthodox Church: 455 Questions and Answers</i>, Minneapolis: Light & Life Pub. Co., 1987, 107)Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-88172220069208435142010-01-17T12:21:52.788-05:002010-01-17T12:21:52.788-05:00"Self-servingly" is a bit over the top. ..."Self-servingly" is a bit over the top. I'll remove that.<br /><br />Now it would be refreshing to see Ken condemn the mountain of potshots taken at me at all the big anti-Catholic sites (I'm a liar, vow-breaker, "evil," nuts, narcissistic, neglect my wife and family, claim to be a scholar, etc. ad nauseum).<br /><br />The last time I asked him directly about White's latest comments, he was strangely silent.<br /><br />For that matter, will he also condemn the numerous potshots that Jason took at "Seraphim," especially towards the end of the combox in the thread I critiqued? <br /><br />Will he write an article decrying all those, too, as attacking motivation and intelligence of someone else?Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-28434919855666855402010-01-17T07:47:12.990-05:002010-01-17T07:47:12.990-05:00You implied it in Your article, when You wrote tha...You implied it in Your article, when You wrote that <i>Orthodoxy caved to Byzantine cultural pressure in the sixth century, to change the apostolic and patristic teaching on divorce and indissoluble marriage</i>. Allowing up to three marriages was already a tradition in St. Basil's time in the East, as can be seen from the canons of St. Basil.The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-20010101630601350892010-01-16T20:28:27.165-05:002010-01-16T20:28:27.165-05:00Thanks for the heads up on the spelling!Thanks for the heads up on the spelling!Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-86291187693024249682010-01-16T19:08:32.966-05:002010-01-16T19:08:32.966-05:00I'll await Jason's and/or David's repl...I'll await Jason's and/or David's reply.<br /><br />And the spelling is "Schaff."Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-72343516487544072172010-01-16T19:07:10.692-05:002010-01-16T19:07:10.692-05:00At the end of the section of Philip Schaaf, that D...At the end of the section of Philip Schaaf, that Dave quotes from, Schaaf recovers from the statement (that Irenaeus can conceive of a Christianity without the Scriptures, but not without living tradition) that Dave took out of context:<br /><br />“In the substance of its doctrine this apostolic tradition agrees with the holy scriptures, and though derived, as to its form, from the oral preaching of the apostles, is really, as to its contents, one and the same with there apostolic writings. In this view the apparent contradictions of the earlier fathers, in ascribing the highest authority to both scripture and tradition in matters of faith, resolve themselves. It is one and the same gospel which the apostles preached with their lips, and then laid down in their writings, and which the church faithfully hands down by word and writing from one generation to another.”Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-42450008955120069372010-01-16T18:58:41.643-05:002010-01-16T18:58:41.643-05:00He might conceive of a Christianity without script...He might conceive of a Christianity without scripture, but he could not imagine a Christianity without living tradition; <br /><br /><i>Irenaeus is not teaching RCC doctrine about development here nor Newman’s theory nor 1870. Irenaeus is not even saying what Schaaf says. In another place, which Dave also quoted, Irenaeus says, “Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, . . . <br />(Against Heresies, III, 5, 1) <br />This proves the Scriptures are the basis for the oral preaching and teaching to the barbarian tribes. Irenaeus is just saying the tradition orally went to the Barbarian tribes and even they agree against the Gnostics by their oral tradition or simple catechism, even without having written Scriptures.<br /><br />Remember the context is about combating Gnosticism, which Protestants also disagree with. We are like Irenaeus because we also are against the heresies of Gnostism.<br /><br />Schaaf again: <br />“Irenaeus confronts the secret tradition of the Gnostics with the open and unadulterated tradition of the catholic church, and points to all churches, but particularly to Rome, as the visible centre of the unity of doctrine.”<br /><br />This is no problem for Protestants because the tradition is a basic proto-Apostles or proto-Nicean Creed and against Gnosticism. There is nothing in Irenaeus’ tradition that teaches Roman Catholic distinctives on the Pope and Mary and indulgences and relics and purgatory.</i><br /><br />The Schaaf quotes are from - (History of the Christian Church, Vol. II: Ante-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 100-325, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970; reproduction of 5th revised edition of 1910, Chapter XII, section 139, "Catholic Tradition," pp. 525-526)<br /> <br />Dave wrote:<br />“Conceiving of a Christianity without Scripture is hardly any sort of Protestantism or anything remotely like it. Jason's contention falls flat in a heap of ashes. Yet Jason is still playing the game.”<br /><br /><i> Jason's contention did not fall flat; rather it is your anachronistic reading of RCC definition of "living tradition" read back into Irenaeus that falls flat. <br /><br />As I wrote above, Schaaf is not saying what Dave Armstrong is making him say; otherwise, how would Schaaf have consistently remained Protestant his whole life? (Same for J.N.D. Kelly, who Dave quotes later) He is not defining “living tradition” the way the RCC does today. He is only saying that even the Barbarian tribes were not Gnostic, believe in the God of the OT, have been taught the tradition without the Scriptures yet; because they were wild tribes that needed the gospel before the time it takes to translate. They can learn the tradition and basic doctrine orally and believe in their hearts without having the Bible.</i>Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-52582854174864160282010-01-16T18:53:00.618-05:002010-01-16T18:53:00.618-05:00Dave wrote,
Quoting from Philip Schaaf,
Irenaeu...Dave wrote, <br />Quoting from Philip Schaaf, <br /><br />Irenaeus confronts the secret tradition of the Gnostics with the open and unadulterated tradition of the catholic church, and points to all churches, but particularly to Rome, as the visible centre of the unity of doctrine. All who would know the truth, says he, can see in the whole church the tradition of the apostles; and we can count the bishops ordained by the apostles, and their successors down to our time, who neither taught nor knew any such heresies. Then, by way of example, he cites the first twelve bishops of the Roman church from Linus to Eleutherus, as witnesses of the pure apostolic doctrine. He might conceive of a Christianity without scripture, but he could not imagine a Christianity without living tradition; <br /><br />Dave stopped the quote here. (I don’t know why)<br /><br />It goes on - <br />and for this opinion he refers to barbarian tribes, who have the gospel, "sine charta et atramento," written in their hearts.<br /><br /><i> Obviously, if they could not read or write yet, and the Scriptures have not been translated yet into their language, they will have to rely on oral teaching and acceptance until that can be done. Oral cultures can be saved by hearing the gospel and repenting and trusting Christ and being able to memorize basic truths as a catechism. Ulfilas (ca 310-383 AD)was an Arian and he was the first to translate the Scriptures in Gothic German. Even Arians were not Gnostics. But Irenaeus is writing around 200 AD, so this is stronger for oral/living tradition to be used as the way of spreading the gospel until the Scriptures can be translated. </i>Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-18526803365666299542010-01-16T18:12:55.215-05:002010-01-16T18:12:55.215-05:00Dave wrote:
That's it, and the concept is alr...Dave wrote:<br /><br />That's it, and the concept is already (I would contend) explicitly present in Scripture, in the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), which not only claimed profoundly binding authority, but even the express sanction of the Holy Spirit, making it close to the concept of biblical inspiration: a thing that goes beyond all Catholic claims for infallibility: an essentially lesser gift than inspiration. The authoritative Church also includes apostolic succession. The true apostolic tradition or deposit is authoritatively passed down.<br /><br /><i> Since the Jerusalem council of Acts 15 is in Scripture, we are assured of its authority by the inspiration of the Scriptures. It is history recorded in Scripture. It does not say that the churches are to go out and copy that model of gathering all the leaders of other churches together (not a sin to do that; Nicea and Chalcedon were good; but they were not infallible or inspired by the Holy Spirit on the same level as Scripture) and that whatever they decide is infallible or 100% in all areas guided by the Holy Spirit. We know that the decision of Acts 15 was guided by the Holy Spirit because the text tells us this. They also quoted Scripture there, so they were acting in a Sola Scriptura kind of way. Peter’s statements in Acts 15:7-10 are consistent with Paul’s epistle to the Galatians; faith alone and grace alone. James quotes from Amos 9:12. There is nothing in the text that says extra-canonical meetings between leaders of church later in history will have the same level of binding authority or inspiration (as you seem to be claiming) or infallibility. The authority of Nicea against the Arians is authoritative because it was biblical; same for the doctrinal issues of Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon. They were right on the issues of the nature of Christ and the Trinity because those doctrines are biblical; but only the Bible is infallible and inerrant. </i>Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-31484552705414941622010-01-16T18:09:20.321-05:002010-01-16T18:09:20.321-05:00Dave wrote:
". . . is precisely an explanati...Dave wrote:<br /><br />". . . is precisely an explanation of organic development over time, meaning (by its very definition) . . . <br /><br /><i> Jason and others of us understand Newman’s theory well enough. “organic development” means “seeds and acorns into oak trees”. We are saying the theory itself is wrong, unbiblical and unhistorical in the earliest centuries. We are not imposing our understanding of it on it, as you claim, rather we are refuting the idea itself, that doctrines/thoughts/ideas are parallel to organic material of seeds, acorns, embryos, eggs, DNA, etc. that grow naturally over time in history. Since the seeds of the Papacy are not there in the Bible, nor in Early Church history, it is non-existent. The mono-episcopate comes later, with Ignatius, later than Clement and the Didache, and even that is nothing compared to the audacity of the Bishop of Rome jurisdictional claims. Cyprian was right to oppose Stephen, bishop of Rome around 255 AD. </i><br /><br />There is such a thing as an authoritative Church, that has binding authority in matters of the faith.<br /><br /><i> Doctrinal Protestants believe in this idea in its basic form. We believe in the local church, and the local church is God’s instrument on the earth to be the body of Christ to minister to people, preach the gospel, teach sound doctrine, discipline the unrepentant, administer baptism and the Lord’s supper. The word “authoritative” would need more definition, as also does the word “binding”. <br /><br />So, this statement is no better than Protestantism and we can affirm it in the bare statement as is and therefore, we are just as much a part of early church history as you are; we are small "c" catholics. History is history; whatever happened is whatever happened. <br /><br />It is easy for the Roman Catholic Church to look back over history and claim it is the one infallible church, because its power and might forced it as the winners in the issue of the Papal doctrines. The Papacy and Infallibility developed slowly over the centuries from the beginning of jurisdictional claims, starting in 255 AD with Stephen, but he was wrong. Even then it did not really start developing until after Gregory and after Islam conquered the east and became more pronounced with the 1054 filoque clause schism with the Greek Orthodox church. The Eastern /Greek and Oriental churches knew it (Papacy, infallibility, jurisdictional claims over all Christians) was wrong also. Boniface VIII made one of the most arrogant statements in history in Unam Sanctum in 1303 AD. Basically, every one must submit to the Pope for salvation. Not only arrogant, but contradictory to Romans, Galatians, John, Acts, Philippians, Ephesians, the whole NT !!<br /><br />The RCC anathematized the EO in 1054 and the Protestants in 1521; then 1545-1564 (bull and trial against Luther and then Trent). <br /><br />They just claim Papal infallibility by raw power and an attitude of "whatever we say goes"</i>Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-70955645091974514702010-01-16T17:52:10.417-05:002010-01-16T17:52:10.417-05:00Dave wrote:
"He seems to expect papal infall...Dave wrote:<br /><br />"He seems to expect papal infallibility and the nature of the papal office to appear almost whole and entire in the early centuries (which is the Protestant tendency in approaching Church history), whereas in fact, development of doctrine (and particularly Venerable Cardinal Newman's formulation of it) is precisely an explanation of organic development over time, meaning (by its very definition) that in many ways doctrines and doctrinal beliefs of large masses of people will look quite different in the year 300 than they would in, say 1870."<br /><br /><i> Since it is such an important and all encompassing doctrine, and indeed the main doctrinal claim that makes the RCC claim to be <b>the</b> Church over all Christendom and all others are in rebellion, we would expect it to be there both in the Scriptures and in the early church history, but, alas, it not in either one. If it was true, we would expect Peter to at least mention some seed form of it in his second letter. 2 Peter does not mention it all; instead he says “this is the second letter I am writing to you” ( 3:1) Let that sink in, “writing to you”; he is emphasizing Scripture. He says his writing to them is “being diligent” and “reminding them of the truth” ( 3:1; 1:12-21) He knows he is going to die. (1:12-18) He says, essentially, “after I am gone, I am writing now, so I will be diligent by writing this, so that when I am gone you will have something written to refer to and build yourselves up and remind yourselves in the truth.” This is Sola Scriptura in a simple form, not any kind of Papal doctrine or dogma or even the existence of a Papal office, much less infallibility of the Pope. Peter does not even mention any presbyter / overseer who would be his successor. Why? Because the early church was a plurality of elders and there was no such thing as one man being the successor of one apostle or presbyter as an authoritative buck stops here kind of office. He called himself a “fellow-elder” (fellow presbyter) in I Peter 5:1. Not only is infallibility not there, the Papal office is not there, and successor to Peter is not there in I Peter, 2 Peter, nor Matthew 16:13-18. Nada, zilch. The mono-episcopate developed later; even the Didache (15:1 - deacons and episcopate) and I Clement only mention 2 offices (presbyters/episcopais as one office and deacons as the other office) and I Clement uses episcopais and presbuteros interchangeably.(I Clement 44 and 47) Both the Didache and I Clement are earlier history than Ignatius, and way earlier than any other juridicitional claims of Rome by Stephen (255 AD), Leo (401 AD) or Gregory (601 AD).</i>Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-3588840931596964112010-01-16T17:49:21.541-05:002010-01-16T17:49:21.541-05:00Dave, you wrote:
“self-servingly molded” [describ...Dave, you wrote:<br /><br />“self-servingly molded” [describing Jason’s method of critique]<br /><br /><i> “self-servingly” is ascribing evil motives to his argumentation. You use words that are seeking to read motives, and that is bad form in argumentation.</i><br /><br />In a nutshell, what he has done in his present argument that I shall critique, is define Catholic development according to hostile Protestant conceptions of it. <br /><br /><i> You seem to have immediately poisoned the well in your argumentation by calling it a “hostile” conception. You say he “defines” it according to his own understanding of it, rather than understanding the Roman Catholic view of the development of doctrine.<br /><br />Jason understands quite well Newman’s development of doctrine theory. It is anachronistic by nature. Ideas and doctrines are not like seeds or organic material. They do not grow like seeds or eggs or embryos. Biblical Doctrine does develop in church history, but right doctrine (not just any claim to have right doctrine) must have Scriptural material and sound exegesis to back it up; the Roman Catholic claims of Pope and Mary and indulgences and relics and NT priests have no credible exegesis or Scriptural backing.<br /><br />Everyone has some kind of Presuppositions; you do also; our human minds are not “tabula rosa” ( blank slates in our minds) (John Locke)</i>Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-1099843294385127082010-01-16T16:56:55.407-05:002010-01-16T16:56:55.407-05:00Who said that he did?Who said that he did?Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-88167949126825913602010-01-16T14:59:59.007-05:002010-01-16T14:59:59.007-05:00I wasn't aware that St. Basil lived in the six...I wasn't aware that St. Basil lived in the sixth century...The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-49548222414851262772010-01-16T14:58:20.417-05:002010-01-16T14:58:20.417-05:00My e-mail is pitoro7@gmail.com, Dave; once again, ...My e-mail is pitoro7@gmail.com, Dave; once again, thanks.Sophia's Loverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04297455192783722594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-91410748022169844762010-01-16T14:50:29.177-05:002010-01-16T14:50:29.177-05:00Sure. What's your e-mail?Sure. What's your e-mail?Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-48041461263926558462010-01-16T12:35:30.959-05:002010-01-16T12:35:30.959-05:00Dave, this is Pito.
I don't mean to be presum...Dave, this is Pito.<br /><br />I don't mean to be presumptuous, but I was wondering if you'd kindly do me a favor. You see, my friend has recently asked some questions about the Catholic view of Luther, as well as objective truth and morality. I don't see my friend often, and he doesn't have a computer.I am also in financial limbo, and so will have trouble paying, but could I possibly be e-mailed your books on Luther and postmodernism respectively, so that my friend can read them when I next see him? I'd be eternally grateful; thanks, Dave.Sophia's Loverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04297455192783722594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-71165826885708754932010-01-14T19:53:11.213-05:002010-01-14T19:53:11.213-05:00I didn't say he was perfect. But he is infinit...I didn't say he was perfect. But he is infinitely better in his demeanor and conduct than folks like Svendsen, White, David T. King, Steve Hays, and the whole lot of big-mouthed, boorish anti-Catholics and their sycophantic followers who cheer them on.<br /><br />I try to give credit where it is due.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-3090566275555922822010-01-14T17:51:00.610-05:002010-01-14T17:51:00.610-05:00Jason Engwer is "amiable"? Please. Her...Jason Engwer is "amiable"? Please. <a href="http://bigwhiteogre.blogspot.com/2008/06/jason-engwer-and-his-ridiculous.html" rel="nofollow">Here's</a> a barrage of insults from him from threads picked at random. <a href="http://bigwhiteogre.blogspot.com/2009/10/mustinsultopponents.html" rel="nofollow">Here's</a> evidence of him nearly being banned at str by the Christian moderator due to his rude behavior. Do amiable people <a href="http://bigwhiteogre.blogspot.com/2008/07/error-pride-and-bluster.html" rel="nofollow">stubbornly refuse to admit blatant and obvious errors</a>?<br /><br />He is informed on some subjects and he writes well. That's why I like interacting with him because I do often learn from him. When pushed though he tends to <a href="http://bigwhiteogre.blogspot.com/2008/08/jason-engwers-apologetic-methodology.html" rel="nofollow">dissemble and obscure</a>.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-62846114561989957392010-01-14T11:58:41.596-05:002010-01-14T11:58:41.596-05:00Thanks for all the nice words and helpful insights...Thanks for all the nice words and helpful insights of everyone in this thread. Truth has its own inherent power, doesn't it?<br /><br />"Author" has a lovely website. Good work! <br /><br />Frank,<br /><br />You're very kind. I do this full-time (have for over eight years now), so that's how I find the time! Even then, projects like this present one about development are extremely time-consuming.<br /><br />I'll give you my thoughts on your essay as soon as I can. If I forget, please remind me!<br /><br />Right now, I'm in my "intense focus" mode of the reply to Jason Engwer, and so it is difficult to concentrate on much else until that gets done.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-89584822187491556242010-01-14T09:43:04.098-05:002010-01-14T09:43:04.098-05:00THANK YOU!!!
Your blog is terrific. I use it all ...THANK YOU!!!<br /><br />Your blog is terrific. I use it all the time for my own research. I love how Protestants prefer to argue the "details" of history as though each moment stands alone. When all of it is taken together their arguments fall apart. I suppose "the devil is in the details," would be in poor taste but I can't help but say it.<br /><br />btw: I used to be a non-Denominational Protestant. But, I couldn't in good conscience subscribe to, or even make sense of all the conflicting ideas and theology of Protestantism. In the end, it is rather peaceful to just submit to Church authority and not remain a Papacy unto myself.Authorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18190869986805570842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-62861649889575021612010-01-14T02:31:11.679-05:002010-01-14T02:31:11.679-05:00Hi Dave.
I really dont understand the way people ...Hi Dave. <br />I really dont understand the way people like Jason think...<br />I mean,if the church is not infallible as he claims,then how could the church ever correct anyone about anything?protestantism is the best example,no authority means confusion . The protestants will die not knowing what is correct and what is false,in fact they are confused and relativism is the result of their confusion,because by denying the authority and infallibility of the church , no one ever is allowed to correct another,because if i claim to be correct and you disagree with me , and i claim to know scripture and so do you , and then again i claim to be led by the Holy Spirit and so do you , then i could say that you are wrong and so do you...But without the authority of the church,there is no solution to the problem,just divisions and confusion and disagreement...<br />How could saint Paul or saint Peter or saint John or saint James or the Church itself tells us that this is true orthodox teaching and this is heresy if the church is not infallible and dosent have the authority from God?<br />So plz Jason , we dont need more confusion in this world .<br />No authority and no infallibility means just relativism and confusion and our God is not the God of confusion.<br />MarounMarounhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17891800446559973689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-83970069067156550992010-01-13T22:04:36.417-05:002010-01-13T22:04:36.417-05:00Quote: In a nutshell, what he has done in his pres...Quote: In a nutshell, what he has done in his present argument that I shall critique, is define Catholic development according to hostile Protestant conceptions of it. <br /><br />That is precisely what I saw throughout his paper. With his logic, the Trinity was an invention because so many various ways (even some that appear contradictory) of explaining it were used. After the first few centuries, when people spoke of the Trinity they had a very robust understanding in their mind, an understanding built from centuries of meditation, and thus something the average Christian way back wouldn't have comprehended or appreciated. <br /><br />Quote: The second thing he does is to make an analogical argument with the canon issue, with the canon being more closely allied, as he sees it, with Protestant sola Scriptura <br /><br />Agreed. The laughable thing was that Jason proceeded throughout as if there weren't variations in the canon among Fathers (even though giving lip service to the fact). <br /><br />Quote: Jason's third methodology (often seen in his apologetics) is to make general statements of a sweeping negative nature and mount these up one after another in machine-gun fashion, thus presenting an illusion of great strength and invulnerability of his positions. <br /><br />Yes, and he is at his 'worst' when he does this to the Fathers, making them come off as a bunch of individualists promoting all sorts of contradictory doctrines and thus as a whole untrustworthy and childish. Of course, using the typical Protestant stealth tactics, he can call them "Christian" on one hand while affirming they weren't promoting a true Gospel on the other.<br /><br />Quote: In order to overcome this, it takes a huge amount of time and labor, in refuting each statement thrown out matter-of-factly. <br /><br />It's the standard operating procedures of the Reformers: toss out as many accusations as possible, hope some of them draw blood, and leave the Catholic to pick up the smear mess. And, if you're really lucky, the Catholic will either get frustrated and give up, or unfortunately respond in personal attacks, making the Protestant look victorious and innocent while the Catholic side looks very weak and full of ill will. <br /><br />Quote: And in St. Irenaeus there is no semblance of a Protestant rule of faith (not even in a "proto" or primitive sense), no matter how hard Jason special pleads to try to manufacture such a reality. <br /><br />It's both sad and funny at the same time. It's the typical Protestant method of appealing to a father as a 'genuine Christian testimony' who doesn't support the Protestant position in the first place. It's a 'blind spot' in Protestant thinking; they honestly cannot see it.<br /><br />Quote: Hence Philip Schaff describes St. Irenaeus' view: He might conceive of a Christianity without scripture, but he could not imagine a Christianity without living tradition <br /><br />Speaking of this quote, the protestant apologist who runs the site JustForCatholics quotes this VERY section of Schaff in SUPPORT of Sola-Scriptura, but leaves out this very quote! <br />http://tinyurl.com/yka59fq <br /><br /><br />Good Part 1. You've obviously been down this path enough times to know how to approach it, what to say, etc, but unsuspecting folks can be misled. I fear such garbage and lies poisoned people such as David Waltz, but we have not given up hope for him and others. Thank you Dave A for this this; many people needed to see this.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-8851521277468117602010-01-13T21:50:53.217-05:002010-01-13T21:50:53.217-05:00I admire the vigor and intellectualism when you fe...I admire the vigor and intellectualism when you feel called to defend your faith. Reading your blogs started me off on a journey researching the reformation, and thinking alot about mankind and his "development." Because of the way i was raised, a had a hard time understanding how a cotholic could share the same faith, and passionately, that i claimed to follow. Your love for Christ, and the depth of your knowledge in the subjects you address makes you interesting to read. I cannot fathom how you find the time to research and write as frequently and heavily as you do, but if you could find the time, i would appreciate your opinion on an essay i started. i posted my intro on my blog, but i have alot more research to do and wanted to make sure i am not going awry. i respect your opinion.Frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16523310763945821733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-70431993399561611422010-01-13T20:40:51.724-05:002010-01-13T20:40:51.724-05:00I havn't read your full post yet, because I...I havn't read your full post yet, because I'm in the middle of going back to read Jason's original post. <br /><br />Anyway, I can see this is only Part 1 for you, so you havn't gotten further into Jason's paper, but this quote from Jasons Paper, paragraph 10, pretty much condemns him: <br /><br />"I've said before that if I were in the position of somebody like Papias, I wouldn't adhere to sola scriptura. But we aren't in his position. We're in a much different position. If sola scriptura had been widely or universally rejected early on, it wouldn't follow that it couldn't be appropriate later, under different circumstances." <br /><br />In otherwords, by his own admission, Sola Scriptura is relative. He wouldn't have 'seen enough' in Scripture way back then in Papias' time to embrace it...but somehow SS becomes "appropriate" later on. This is self condemnation because he's willingly rushing to embrace a system (SS) he's shown to be false.<br /><br />What's unfortunate about Engwer's approach to the Fathers is that it's self destructive, burning down the very edifice from which supports him today. Tearing apart the fathers, making them look silly and untrustworthy, only can harm the one claiming to be Christian. Engwer's approach is much like the Joker's on The Dark Knight.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.com