Cardinal John Henry Newman once said that "to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant". This idea is reflected emphatically in modern Roman Catholic apologetic material (to be fair, not all Catholic apologists promote this myth, but it has circulated among the Catholic Answers folks) and by Roman Catholics in general. Basically some Roman Catholics have this view that if Protestants would simply read the church fathers, then they would instantly become Catholic (some include Eastern Orthodox in there, this ought to give you an idea).
An article from Catholic Answers [link] says the following about Newman's famous quote:
"Newman’s maxim is not intended to be a “rule” that those Protestants versed in Church history “must” enter the Catholic Church. It is a general observation that Church history argues against Protestantism and that those Protestants who study history deeply many times realize that the Catholic Church is the true Church."
Some Catholic converts at the ETWN organization have said that the early church fathers were instrumental in their conversion to Catholicism [link]
To demonstrate that this idea is false, here are some material from major works of Reformed Theology:
The great Puritan Reformed theologian John Owen in his book The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, in which Owen gives a case for limited atonement, there is an index in the back of the book [link] called 'A Few Testimonies from the Ancients' in which he gives quotes from the church fathers to support the doctrines of grace:
16 comments:
Hello Matt,
Judging by what I see on your blog, I think that your content is very good. I also noticed that your blog is new and is very well designed. I encourage you to keep going, my brother. I intend on finding some space for your site on my blogroll.
Thanks man! I have checked out your blog as well. Keep up the good work
If you would like to follow my blog, there is a button on the left side where you can do that (No pressure! ;) )
Feel free to subscribe to my site and also to comment. I still have got to get you added to the blogroll.
Are you familiar with a certain Catholic apologist named Trent Horn?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ95ql0BU3E
He's been making a lot of noise as of lately.
I was wondering what you think of this argument that Catholic apologist made?:
"In regard to the authority of the Bishop of Rome as Peter’s successor, in the first century Clement of Rome (the fourth pope) intervened in a dispute in the Church of Corinth. He warned those who disobeyed him that they would “involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger,” thus demonstrating his authority over non-Roman Christians. St. Ignatius of Antioch referred to the Roman Church as the one that teaches other churches and “presides in love” over them. In fact, the writings of Pope Clement (A.D. 92-99) and Pope Soter (A.D. 167-174) were so popular that they were read in the Church alongside Scripture (Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9)."
What do you think of the part of the excerpt about the "popularity of writings done by popes?"
I followed you by email!
Regarding Trent Horn, I am most definitely familiar with him. I have a copy of his book "The Case for Catholicism" on PDF. A couple days ago I viewed the debate with James White.
Regarding the quote from Eusebius, I would assume this is a Catholic argument against Sola Scriptura. Correct me if I am wrong.
I would respond with what the text actually says "popularity of writings", not that these papal documents are θεοπνευστος, if that is the argument they are trying to make.
If this is trying to argue for the papacy, then they should be sure to interpret in light of everything else Eusebius said regarding Peter, Matthew 16, and the bishop of Rome:
"Yet you will not in any way err from the scope of the truth if you suppose that the 'world' is actually the Church of God, and that its 'foundation' is in the first place, that unspeakably solid rock on which it is founded, as Scripture says: 'Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it' and elsewhere: 'The rock, moreover, was CHRIST'. For as the Apostle indicates with these words: 'No other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus." (Eusebius, Commentary on the Psalms, M.P.G., Vol. 23, Col. 173,176)
He goes on to say that the Rock could be the confession of Peter.
Eusebius is quite clear: The Rock of Matthew 16 is Christ himself, rather than Peter, as Catholic Answers would try to get us to believe.
Also, I would recommend checking out this post: https://solideogloriaapologetics.blogspot.com/2020/05/burying-zakir-hussains-arguments.html
I go through Islamic apologist Zakir Hussain's arguments against James White in their debate on the crucifixion [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-Yp9LUtadg]
Jesse, I know you have had some dealing with Nick the Catholic. I have as well. In a comment section on the following post: https://solideogloriaapologetics.blogspot.com/2020/07/how-galatians-1-proves-that-cephas-is.html
Feel free to go over to the comments and join the conversation
You mean Nick the Brick? He's known or being obstinate.
*for
so im a Muslim I believe Jesus is not god but only a prophet but here are my reasoning
alright ok my ques tons to the Christian view of Jesus are
1) if Jesus is God then why did he die
2) now God says he can't change so if he became a man then that is a contridiction because God says he can't change
3) if Jesus is God why does he not know the hour
4) now the first group to emerge from Christianity was the embonites but they believed Jesus was only a prophet and not god
Now also I have some prophecies of prophet muhammad in the bible now if these prophecies are true then you still have to ask why does the bible consider muhammad to be a prophet when he teaches God can't have a son
So here muhammad in the bible
1) deu toronomy 33:2 it says
THE LORD CAME FROM SINAI AND ROSE from mount Sher and shined forth from mount paran now para n now paran was were the Arabs use to settle and muhammad was an Arab and with ten thousand saints now when muhammad came to makkah he came with ten thousand companions
2) in song of solomon in hebrew muhammad is mentioned by name it says this hikko mam ta kim we kullo *MUHAMMAD* im
3) God says in Deut 18 that there will be a prophet like Moses now actually the Quran confirms muhammad is like Moses in surah 73 verse 15
Post your comment at this post: https://solideogloriaapologetics.blogspot.com/2020/05/john-858-in-light-of-muslim-objections.html
It is more relevant to the topic
1) Jesus had two natures. This is a doctrine known as the Hypostatic Union [ὑπόστασις in Greek]. Jesus had a divine nature and a human nature. When Jesus died on the cross, his physical body died, not his spirit. As others have pointed out, questions like yours often assume that death means non-existence. Then how would you explain John 2:19, where Jesus says HE will raise HIMSELF up? This proves without a doubt that Jesus still existed in some sense between his death and resurrection.
2) Concerning the "God doesn't change" argument, this is most often argued by appealing to Malachi 3:6 which says:
“For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed." (ESV)
A similar argument was made by one of the questioners at the Mohammed Hijab vs. David Wood debate.
Here is an article from apologist Keith Thompson which refutes this polemic: exegeticalapologetics.com/2018/05/answering-jesus-isnt-god-because-god.html
1) now I knew your answer but Christians today fall into the hersey of nestorianism bas ically this means that when two natures are together and eternally United then what ever happens to one nature happens to the other Or else logically speaking you are separating them apart which is a heresy of nestorianism meaning of I have water I mix it with juice then whatever happens to the juice happens with the water or else on a logical basis I will separating them apart
Cause they are eternally United I myself can have 100 natures but when I die all my natures die cause they are eternally United
2) for God change you sent a link but I was unable to click on it cause it my device dissent allow me to some how please try to tell me what they wrote
3) if Jesus is God why does he not know the hour
4) one of the first groups to emerge from Christianity ebionites believed Jesus was a prophet and not god
Now for muhammad in bible
1) in Deut 33:2 it says the Lord came from Sinai and rose from mount shei r and shined forth from mount para n now paran was were the Arabs use to settle and with ten thousand saints now when muhammad came to makkah he came with ten thousand saints
2) in song of solomon it says muhammad by name it says hikko mam ta kim we kullo muhammad im
3) in Deut 18 it talks of a prophet who will be like Moses and the Quran confirms in surah 73 verse 15 muhammad was like Moses
1) now I knew your answer but Christians today fall into the hersey of nestorianism bas ically this means that when two natures are together and eternally United then what ever happens to one nature happens to the other Or else logically speaking you are separating them apart which is a heresy of nestorianism meaning of I have water I mix it with juice then whatever happens to the juice happens with the water or else on a logical basis I will separating them apart
Cause they are eternally United I myself can have 100 natures but when I die all my natures die cause they are eternally United
2) for God change you sent a link but I was unable to click on it cause it my device dissent allow me to some how please try to tell me what they wrote
3) if Jesus is God why does he not know the hour
4) one of the first groups to emerge from Christianity ebionites believed Jesus was a prophet and not god
Now for muhammad in bible
1) in Deut 33:2 it says the Lord came from Sinai and rose from mount shei r and shined forth from mount para n now paran was were the Arabs use to settle and with ten thousand saints now when muhammad came to makkah he came with ten thousand saints
2) in song of solomon it says muhammad by name it says hikko mam ta kim we kullo muhammad im
3) in Deut 18 it talks of a prophet who will be like Moses and the Quran confirms in surah 73 verse 15 muhammad was like Moses
Post a Comment