tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post3525463325456202091..comments2024-03-13T17:03:38.660-07:00Comments on Answering Catholic Claims: THE CHURCH FATHERSRussellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17823479491839694646noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-9518873556523126412018-05-12T00:09:55.358-07:002018-05-12T00:09:55.358-07:00Jesse,
You don't usually hear these types of ...Jesse,<br /><br />You don't usually hear these types of quotes from Catholics. Interesting.Russellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17823479491839694646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-55840127718018559362018-05-11T11:22:58.048-07:002018-05-11T11:22:58.048-07:00Russ,
Here are some interesting quotes from Thoma...Russ,<br /><br />Here are some interesting quotes from Thomas Aquinas:<br /><br />"We believe the prophets and apostles because the Lord has been their witness by performing miracles…and we believe the successors of the apostles and prophets only in so far as they tell us those things which the apostles and prophets have left in their writings." (De veritate 14.10, ad 11)<br /> <br />"Only to those books or writings which are called canonical have I learnt to pay such honour that I firmly believe that none of their authors have erred in composing them." (Summa Theologiae 1a.1.8.)Jesse Albrechthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01349321905468957335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-86210831275882503152017-03-23T22:29:19.125-07:002017-03-23T22:29:19.125-07:00Hey Jessie,
Yes, they do get quite annoying. It ...Hey Jessie,<br /><br />Yes, they do get quite annoying. It seems that the fathers solve all the problems. All you have to do is start reading the early church fathers and you will automatically become Catholic. It’s a no-brainer! To be deep in history… <br /><br />Sorry, but nice try, my Catholic friends. I don’t buy it. And if you guys want to risk your eternal salvation on UNINSPIRED writings, then that’s up to you. I’ll stick with Scripture.<br /><br />But Jessie, you and I (and many like us) need to keep on sharing the simple truth of the gospel with them, because there ARE a few of them who will listen.<br />Russellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17823479491839694646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-14723524487189985792017-03-23T12:41:59.370-07:002017-03-23T12:41:59.370-07:00Hi Russell,
I have one more curious question for ...Hi Russell,<br /><br />I have one more curious question for you to answer. What do you make of the Catholic conversion stories which are supposedly based on the reading of church history? I hear about them all the time, and it gets pretty annoying after awhile!Jesse Albrechthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01349321905468957335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-75889952257211418742017-03-23T08:29:52.379-07:002017-03-23T08:29:52.379-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jesse Albrechthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01349321905468957335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-70721243695566213692017-03-22T20:03:13.163-07:002017-03-22T20:03:13.163-07:00Hi Jessie,
First of all, as I said in the article...Hi Jessie,<br /><br />First of all, as I said in the article, I don't believe that there was ever any "unanimous consent" of the fathers on ANY uniquely Catholic doctrine. It would certainly surprise me if there was. But if there was, it would not affect my faith at all.<br /><br />Jessie, I'm no expert on the fathers, but I think that one major problem is with many of the interpretations of the fathers today. Some of the language back then is similar to the "Catholic-speak" of today, but the meaning of those same words / phrases was often quite different in context.Russellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17823479491839694646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-35240043699418634662017-03-22T10:20:11.775-07:002017-03-22T10:20:11.775-07:00Hi Russell,
Even though you specifically said in ...Hi Russell,<br /><br />Even though you specifically said in your post that it is logically possible for the entire church to be wrong on a particular issue (consensus does not determine truth), what would you think if the early church was unanimous on doctrines such as Purgatory or the Eucharist? My curiosity was raised by some of the comments on this article as as was reviewing them. Jesse Albrechthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01349321905468957335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-89255765722406659612016-10-19T03:34:07.272-07:002016-10-19T03:34:07.272-07:00you are reasoning from your background and i am fr...you are reasoning from your background and i am from my background, because you believe that SS is true you perceive everything in that direction, thats called perception, even when you read the bible you try by all means to bring out SS everywhere e.g. where the bible says Gospel you interpret it to mean scripture when Gospel does not mean scripture that is the effect of your background and emotions etc etc you need to examine your interpretations once more(as i will do to mine) to see if the Bible is really saying what you are think it says. <br /><br />this is what i believe, (in all this Chaos) what we received as long as i can trace it to the Early Church, thats what is reasonable to me, if the Early Church believed that Jesus was God and a watchtower and his interpretation comes and tells He is not i will show Him what the Early Church believed, they heard directly from the Apostles so i can trust them than i can do my reasoning. <br /><br />you believe in your interpretation in other words in your reasoning capacity and your ability to interpret scripture that is basically because of your background which believe in Sola Scriptura plus the use of reason.<br />no more need to go further with this discussion. Thanx Perfect Mugwagwanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-837892940419503042016-10-19T02:28:26.421-07:002016-10-19T02:28:26.421-07:00since No one is listening to the other lets not wa...since No one is listening to the other lets not waste our timePerfect Mugwagwanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-84055506503378187402016-10-18T20:03:24.250-07:002016-10-18T20:03:24.250-07:00Mug,
You said:
“Infallibility is necessary for u...Mug,<br /><br />You said:<br /><br />“Infallibility is necessary for us to what precisely what the Word of God meant not reasoning to reach a conclusion which can be fault anyway.”<br /><br />Listen, it would be great if we had infallibility, but there is nothing in Scripture that suggests anyone will have any kind of infallibility in the church after the apostles. Rather, church leaders are warned to guard their teachings, simply because they can, indeed, possibly teach error (1 Timothy 4:16, 6:20; 2 Timothy 1:14; Acts 20:28-31).<br /><br />You said:<br /><br />“so why do you condemn the CC when yourself only uses reason which is affected by background, attachments and emotions as well?”<br /><br />I’m not sure, but I think what you’re asking here is why do I condemn the Catholic Church when I am not infallible, but only use reason? Well, do you suggest we DON’T use reason, Mug? I think you said that I “only” use reason… but what else are we supposed to use? Are we to leave our minds at the door and blindly follow the teachings of the Church (any church)? I think that common sense and a humble attitude goes a long way to understanding the Scriptures. After all, it was the poor, the uneducated and the lost that were attracted to Jesus… and He welcomed them.<br /><br />Concerning my thoughts on the keys and the binding / loosing of Matthew 16, see the latest article here:<br /><br />http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/10/matthew-16-keys-binding-and-loosing.html#comment-form<br /><br />Russellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17823479491839694646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-7523744218772460592016-10-18T16:54:20.143-07:002016-10-18T16:54:20.143-07:00Hi Perfect,
First, you said that the church came ...Hi Perfect,<br /><br />First, you said that the church came before the Bible, which is true of the New Testament Scriptures. But this does nothing to refute Sola Scriptura and is in fact irrelevant to the debate. The Old Testament Scriptures existed before the church came into being. Your claim neither proves that the Old Testament Scriptures could not function as the final authority for the first century Christians nor that the Bible as we have it today cannot be the final authority in doctrinal matters.<br /><br />It really takes a lot to read infallibility, apostolic succession, or other papal inventions into the context of Matthew 16:18-19.<br /><br />As for the rest of your post, it is far from being coherent and fails to address anything that I have said. In fact, I can tell that you have not listened to any of my arguments throughout this blog because YOU CONTINUALLY repeat yourself. Why haven't you answered any of my questions or arguments? Have you even read ANY of my posts to other Catholics who mentioned your SAME arguments? All you have been doing is talking past our arguments, used circular reasoning, and tried making me answer to double standards. And I will not tolerate your nonsense.<br /><br />JesseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-46891235194903809032016-10-17T20:25:53.448-07:002016-10-17T20:25:53.448-07:00Well said, Jesse!Well said, Jesse!Russellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17823479491839694646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-26459272370725634892016-10-17T19:37:07.919-07:002016-10-17T19:37:07.919-07:00Infallibility is necessary for us to what precisel...Infallibility is necessary for us to what precisely what the Word of God meant not reasoning to reach a conclusion which can be fault anyway. The Church came before the NT writings i do not read the NT writings as if the Church was born out of them but it was from the Church that people wrote those writings, before all those were written Peter was already the Pope and he was infallible. There is a reason why Paul calls the Church the pillar and bulwark of the truth. For you truth is what we can reasonably come to conclude and for us Catholics it is what we received, the Pope just confirms it.<br /><br /><br />My question about infallibility is simple if the Catholic Church 's claims about infallibility are wrong since it is fallible as you assume according to your logic they are reasonably correct since no is fallible and you cannot say they are wrong because you are also infallible so why do you condemn the CC when yourself only uses reason which is affected by background, attachments and emotions as well?<br /><br />Our starting Point is Christ, according to Jesus would Peter be able bind and loose with error(whatever your intepretation of binding and loosing) when that same thing is bound/looseth in heaven as well? If not thats infallibility to that extent is it not so. But our intepretation of the Keys are different since our Lord says WHATSOEVER you shall bind/looseth we take it to mean whatsoever.now use your reason to say why it does not whatsoever. According to your limited definition of the keys it relates opening doors heaven to souls and since what they need is only the bible according to you then when he binds that this writing is scripture is it not bound in heaven? And that one is not is that not bound in heaven?<br /><br />Thanks for the discussion i am outPerfect Mugwagwanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-46147393650446730642016-10-17T15:48:55.747-07:002016-10-17T15:48:55.747-07:00Hello Perfect,
The argument that we need an infal...Hello Perfect,<br /><br />The argument that we need an infallible interpreter of Scripture is really no different than the argument that we are unable to understand the Bible. These quibbles are built practically off the same premises to reach their conclusions. If the Bible cannot speak for itself or needs an "infallible" entity to reveal its meaning, then it must be "dead" or too "ambiguous". for us to understand. Otherwise, what is the big deal about infallibility? Nothing of what you are saying would make any sense. And yes, I feel that you do indeed spend much time ranting on about "infallible" interpretations of Scripture. Contrary to Rome, they are indeed intelligible to any person who desires to know God's will for mankind.<br /><br />As I have stated multiple times before, being liable to error does not mean that you will always be in wrong. Thus, you can test my interpretations of Scripture by examining the context, comparing it to what other passages say about that particular subject, use your common sense, and even a concordance, commentaries, or a Bible dictionary. It is not as if you would ever trust my interpretations anyway, no matter how reasonable or true they may be.<br /><br />How can we know with certainty that the Catholic Church's interpretations of Scripture are correct and that it is the one true church? How do you know that the pope is infallible?<br /><br />Jesse <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-58096481817806592942016-10-16T03:58:45.821-07:002016-10-16T03:58:45.821-07:00"you have written SEVERAL paragraphs througho..."you have written SEVERAL paragraphs throughout this blog telling us (wasting time?) how the Bible is practically impossible to understand." where did i say this?<br /><br />"According to the above words, does the Bible sound AT ALL like a dead letter" what led you to conclude that i imply that.<br /><br />i am asking simple questions about SS, how can i trust your interpretations of the bible yet you are infallible<br /><br />Perfect Mugwagwanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-82765054047440969232016-10-15T21:42:24.423-07:002016-10-15T21:42:24.423-07:00Hello Russell,
My apologies for not getting back ...Hello Russell,<br /><br />My apologies for not getting back to you sooner. I hope that none of these Catholics have gotten on your nerves. Many of the things that they come up with can be just outlandish! But I am glad if I have been of any assistance or a source of relief. <br /><br />I was wondering if you could answer my question regarding resources on church history. But if you do not know of any, then I will not insist on an answer.<br /><br />Keep up the diligent gospel preaching which is for edification, and ignore the illogical arguments made by any possible detractors. <br /><br />Thanks,<br />JesseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-90817571208520725012016-10-15T21:30:54.646-07:002016-10-15T21:30:54.646-07:00(Part 2)
Thirdly, you keep on emphasizing the ide...(Part 2)<br /><br />Thirdly, you keep on emphasizing the idea of "infallibility". How do you know that the Catholic Church's interpretation of Scripture is correct? Just because you submit your intellect and will to a third party organization to interpret Scripture does not mean that you will be more correct than others. How do you know that your interpretation of official Catholic sources and the words of your teachers is correct? What about the things you read and/or analyze in general? If an infallible institution is necessary to obtain the correct meaning behind every Scripture passage, then which one (out of the many out there) is correct? After that, how do you know that you are absolutely right? You end up falling with a never ending series of "how do you know" questions. Ironically, Catholicism has offered "infallible" interpretations of VERY FEW verses in the ENTIRE BIBLE. This is very telling. Furthermore, being liable to error does not mean that we will always be wrong in our decision making. God obviously expects us to choose what is right. God uses fallible beings to accomplish His purpose and still does that in the church today. He can make ANYTHING work. One must wonder why Catholics make such a big deal over the issue of fallibility. It is almost as if you guys have a veil averting your eyes from the truth, just as the Jews who deny that Christ is the risen Messiah (as recorded in 2 Corinthians 3:15-16).<br /><br />Fourthly, you cited 2 Timothy 2:2 in an attempt to prove the concept of apostolic succession. However, notice that Paul exhorts Timothy to pass the truth on to "faithful men", not "bishops and priests". We are ALL called to preach the truth of the gospel (2 Peter 2:5-9). Furthermore, this text only describes the simple process of discipleship. It does not even say anything about passing on extra-biblical infallible oral revelation. Interestingly, the Apostle Paul does not mention anything about a future successor to him and points Timothy to the Scriptures as an infallible standard to turn to in times of deception (2 Timothy 3:13-17).<br /><br />It is funny that you quote large portions of Russell's articles and say nothing of relevance. Can you tell us why you disagree with his interpretation of the above passages? You have said nothing so far. What leads you to the conclusion that your church hierarchy has the final say in religious matters?<br /><br />JesseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-40061388566962807462016-10-15T19:57:39.359-07:002016-10-15T19:57:39.359-07:00Hello Perfect,
(Part 1)
There are just a few thin...Hello Perfect,<br />(Part 1)<br /><br />There are just a few things that I would like to point out.<br /><br />Firstly, you told me to look at Christian history as recorded by Eusebius, who lived around 300 AD. Then, you went on to say that he was the BEST source to examine, even better than any reputable Catholic websites. But on what basis do you make such extraordinary claims? How do I know if you are not making this argument out of mere bias? I hope you do recognize that the "succession lists" made by the early fathers contradict each other. Even today, the Church of Rome cannot identify how many supposed popes have reigned since Peter! See this well researched article for more information:<br />http://eaec.org/cults/rc/confusion_of_the_popes.htm<br /><br />Secondly, you have written SEVERAL paragraphs throughout this blog telling us (wasting time?) how the Bible is practically impossible to understand. But such empty talk gets you nowhere in the end. Let's allow the Scriptures to speak for themselves. "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law” (Deuteronomy 29:29). "The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple; the precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes" (Psalms 19:7-8). "Oh, how I love your law! I meditate on it all day long. Your commands are always with me and make me wiser than my enemies. I have more insight than all my teachers, for I meditate on your statutes. I have more understanding than the elders, for I obey your precepts. I have kept my feet from every evil path so that I might obey your word. I have not departed from your laws, for you yourself have taught me. How sweet are your words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth! I gain understanding from your precepts; therefore I hate every wrong path. Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light on my path" (Psalm 119:97-105). "The unfolding of your words gives light; it imparts understanding to the simple" (Psalms 119:130). "And how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Timothy 3:15). "But until this very day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their minds, but when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed" (2 Corinthians 3:15-16). “For we are not writing to you anything other than what you read and understand and I hope you will fully understand” (2 Corinthians 1:13). "That is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets" (Ephesians 3:3-5). "It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed" (Luke 1:3-4). <br /><br />According to the above words, does the Bible sound AT ALL like a dead letter, as you are implying? I could NEVER deduce that! Be careful with how you treat God's Word.<br /><br />Jesse<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-76751209215124179212016-10-11T14:37:53.260-07:002016-10-11T14:37:53.260-07:00The Bible commands us to TEST ALL THINGS (I Thessa...The Bible commands us to TEST ALL THINGS (I Thessalonians 5:21; I John 4:1), which would include the fathers, and we test them with the Scriptures, just as Jesus did (Matthew 15:1-9). No one’s teachings are exempt from this test, whether it’s the Catholic Church, a Protestant church, any church father, or any individual or group. We are all subject to God’s ultimate authority, the Scriptures, which will judge us in the last day (John 12:48). Even the teachings of the APOSTLES were to be tested (Acts 17:11), as well as those who claimed to be apostles (Revelation 2:2). And if we can test an angel from Heaven (Galatians 1:8-9), we can certainly test the church fathers.<br /><br /><br />Well we do not agree on your interpretation of those verses, and on your conclusion that the Ultimate Authority is Scripture. So you can use it as your standard but that does not apply to everyone, why do you think SS should apply to everyone when its only your interpretation and of the protestants that agrees to it? Is that not claiming to be infallible interpretors of scripture?Perfect Mugwagwanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-549919662199507762016-10-11T14:30:21.629-07:002016-10-11T14:30:21.629-07:00Thirdly, there is an extraordinary assumption in t...Thirdly, there is an extraordinary assumption in the above claim: that the modern day Catholic Church is the same church that existed in the first century, i.e., the church we find in the Bible. But how can the Catholic Church be that same one when many of its teachings are not found in the Bible, and oftentimes even contradict the Bible?<br /><br />1. To use SS as standard for testing Truth is false in itself because we do not agree at all that SS is scriptural, do not use this as a standard for Catholics until we agree that SS is indeed Scriptural.<br />2. I have been reading many of your articles and you have nullified whatever you could have said by debating infallibility of the interpretor in them. If you claim that there is no need for an infallible interpretor then this blog does not need to exist at all because its now my fallible interpretation and against your fallible, which means that the CC is biblical but only differs on interpretations from yours. E.g. the CC teaches that the Bible is inspired and is a rule of faith but it disagrees that it is the ONLY rule of faith. If you are not infallible this blog is a joke since we have no need of infallible certainty of truth, therefore the CC is not at fault according to your logic since we have no need of infallible certainty of truth starting from the canon.<br />Perfect Mugwagwanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-72697873361372730322016-10-11T12:21:40.639-07:002016-10-11T12:21:40.639-07:00Read the History of the Christian Church by Eusebi...Read the History of the Christian Church by Eusebius, written around 300 AD, its more reliable than a Catholic Website when it comes to HistoryPerfect Mugwagwanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-62222556054175816402016-10-11T12:19:06.500-07:002016-10-11T12:19:06.500-07:00Hie Russel
You said in one comment on another dis...Hie Russel<br /><br />You said in one comment on another discussion that the early Church Simply recognised the books in the Bible as inspired(though i do not agree fully with it) i want to ask, which people in which years were refering to?<br /><br />But even if something would be unanimous, that is not a criteria for determining the truth.<br />This standard can apply to SS believers. Its no criteria for determining the Truth either because the Bible has to be intepretated and on interpretating The Bible, we do not know what a certain passage actually meant your interpretation can be wrong or mine can be wrong or both can be wrong because we are all fallible, so the standard of Truth is nowhere to be found. Yes the Bible is there and it contains Truth but it is not self-interpreting, we cannot find the true meaning of the verses which are supposed to give us the truth. It does not matter if all protestants are in agreement on SS.<br /><br />The ECFs help us because they heard from the Apostles with their own ears and had the chance to even verify if they heard is what they actually meant, they would know what the Apostles writings meant and they would.<br /><br />2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.<br /><br />Who were these Faithful men Paul was talking about here? Are these not the men who leant from the Apostles? Are these not the men we should look up to after the Apostles? Timothy leant from Paul and who later had to teach other faithful men.<br />Mark and Luke also leant from the Apostles and they wrote the accounts of what we call the gospels today from what they heard from the Apostles. What of Linus, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycard, Iraneus.Perfect Mugwagwanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-36270383815355299572016-10-09T10:47:38.880-07:002016-10-09T10:47:38.880-07:00Hi Russell,
Thank your for your complements. I re...Hi Russell,<br /><br />Thank your for your complements. I really appreciate them.<br /><br />Do you know of any articles or reputable websites dealing with the Roman Catholic Church's claims regarding history?<br /><br />JesseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-71980104796221844232016-10-09T03:15:56.675-07:002016-10-09T03:15:56.675-07:00Hey Jesse,
First of all, from what I’ve seen, th...Hey Jesse, <br /><br />First of all, from what I’ve seen, there IS no “unanimous consent” (that the Catholic Church always brags about) in the early fathers on ANY strictly Catholic doctrine. But even if something would be unanimous, that is not a criteria for determining the truth.<br /><br />I’ve seen comments by the Reformed guys about Purgatory, and they seem to have some interesting arguments about Catholics misunderstanding what the fathers were actually saying about “praying for the dead.” You might look at some of their comments on that topic.<br /><br />By the way, I really appreciate the “back up” that you’ve been providing in our discussions with Catholics on the newer articles. It’s really helpful. Thanks again, my brother. I’m proud of you!<br /><br />God Bless!<br />Russellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17823479491839694646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-49129247590969573862016-10-08T12:44:18.758-07:002016-10-08T12:44:18.758-07:00Hi Russell,
The above anonymous comment rose my i...Hi Russell,<br /><br />The above anonymous comment rose my interest.<br /><br />What would you do if the early church was unanimous on a uniquely Catholic doctrine such as Purgatory? What then?<br /><br />JesseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com