Why I Love the Church (Part 1)
July 3rd, 2007
(By John MacArthur)
A young man contemplating conversion to Roman Catholicism wrote me to explain why he was thinking of leaving Protestantism:
Protestants don’t seem to appreciate the Church. The Bible describes the Church as an institution Christ founded and loves. The Church is everything to Catholics; it is nothing to most of my Protestant friends.
In a similar vein, the 15 July 1998 issue of Christianity Today included an article by Timothy George, dean of Beeson Divinity School at Samford University: “What I’d Like to Tell the Pope About the Church.” The article’s subtitle: “Responding to the main criticism Catholics have against evangelicals: that we have no doctrine of the church.” Dr. George quoted from a sermon by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in which Bonhoeffer noted that the word church “to Protestants has the sound of something infinitely commonplace, more or less indifferent and superfluous, that does not make their heart beat faster; something with which a sense of boredom is so often associated.”
Let’s be honest: there is too much truth in those criticisms to dismiss them lightly. Evangelicals are far too prone to indifference about the church. Some evangelicals live on the periphery of the church, attending and observing without ever really becoming an integral part of the body. Many who profess faith in Christ remain totally impassive about the church. As author Michael Griffiths noted,
A high proportion of people who “go to church” have forgotten what it is all for. Week by week they attend services in a special building and go through their particular, time-honored routine, but give little thought to the purpose of what they are doing. The Bible talks about the “the bride of Christ” but the church today seems like a ragged Cinderella. It needs to reaffirm the nonnegotiable, essential elements that God designed for it to be committed to. [God's forgetful Pilgrims (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978)]
He’s right. Worse yet, I know of people in full-time Christian service, employed by evangelical parachurch organizations, who have no involvement whatsoever with any local church. This is to the shame of the whole evangelical movement.
Of course, the remedy for evangelical apathy about the church is not a return to the twisted, extrabiblical ecclesiology of the Roman Catholic Church. Evangelical Protestants must approach ecclesiology as they have soteriology—from the perspective of Scripture alone. Unfortunately even among many Protestants, too many of the popular notions about the church are laden with human traditions, superstitions, and other holdovers from the medieval Catholic Church. Scripture alone can give us a sound understanding and appreciation of the true role and nature of the church.
I love the church. I am inveterate and incurable lover of the church. It thrills me beyond expression to serve the church. Although I am also involved in some parachurch ministries, I wouldn’t trade my ministry in the church for all of them combined. The church takes first place in my ministry priorities, and all the parachurch ministries I serve are subordinate to, and grow out of, my ministry in the church.
In fact, my whole life has been lived in the church. My father was a pastor, as were my grandfathers for three more generations before him. So a deep love for the church practically runs in my blood.
In a short series of upcoming posts, I’m going to outline some biblical reasons I love the church.
Wonderful! Since my conversion a year ago, the church has become a very real, central, integral, essential part of my family’s life.
My husband was also converted to Christ, 6 months following my own, and after a two-year long divorce, God saw fit to not only save our souls, but to recconcile our broken family as well. Our church family, comprised of some of the most Christ-loving, humbled servants I have ever had the honor to meet, played an immeasurable role in helping to guide us in our new spiritual walk with the Lord, serving Him by serving others, and towards the recconciling of our marriage.
Our relationship with Christ and our involvement in this small, sweet, local church, have blessed our marriage and our children, in ways words cannot sufficiently express. What a humbling and enormous honor it is to serve our Savior this way.
I cannot exhort fellow Christians more, to be actively and sincerely engaged in the body of Christ, in this way!
I very much look forward to this series!
“…twisted, extrabiblical ecclesiology of the Roman Catholic Church.”
I’m always astounded by the woefull lack of humility among many fundamentalist/evangelicals’. You would think that out of 1.2 billion Catholics there would be one or two intelligent Catholic theologians that were privy to the same information you’ve gathered on ecclesiology…yet amazingly came to very different conclusions about the nature of the church.
Dear Kristine,
As a small church pastor, your comments were very encouraging to me. I am motivated to keep serving my small church diligently so that they can grow in Christ and experience the obvious joy you demonstrate in your remarks.
Blessings,
Steve
Chad,
Your remark cuts both ways and really serves no purpose.
The reason fundamentalist/evangelicals and Catholics come to different conclusions regarding ecclesiology is generated by the different assumptions they each operate under regarding the final authority in matters of faith.
Having grown up as a practicing Catholic and now ministering as a Baptist pastor, I know first hand how those assumptions influence one’s doctrinal understanding.
I suspect that you already know that evangelical teachers like John MacArthur base their doctrine of the church on their understanding of Scripture. That said, I would hope you would be very interested in reading why John MacArthur loves the church as he understands it in order to compare what he says to the source of his authority - the New Testament, and with your own views of the church.
Respectfully,
Steve
Oh for more love for Christ’s church!
One of the greatest challenges that this article speaks to is what the proper connection should be between our Churches and parachurch organizations. If done right, these parachurches can do wonders in “standing in the gap”, and turning folks toward actual churches. If done wrong, they can become a very poor substitute for their real church counterparts, do great damage to the biblical image of what a “church” is.
Looking forward to the series…
Steve,
My post had to do with what I found to be John’s lack of humility, and serves a purpose only in pointing that out. Derogatory adjectives like “twisted,” and loaded terms like “extrabiblical,” only serve to shut down dialogue and understanding between Catholics and Evangelicals, and does little for convincing Catholics of the possible rightness of Evangelical claims.
As a former Southern Baptist, it was this type of arrogance that, more than anything else, convinced me to begin looking elsewhere, outside evangelical/fundamentalism for my spiritual nourishment. Just a word to the wise for those of you concerned about the souls of those who do not subscribe to your religious interpretations and assumptions.
Chad, you must find Christ pretty “arrogant”, too. He blasted false teachers as did many prophets and apostles. Catholicism is FALSE. Sure there are intelligent people acting as apologists but they are deceived by a much MORE intelligent being called Satan. Elevating a scriptural bit player like Mary to near godhood is twisted. Worshiping a cracker is twisted. John MacArthur calls it like he sees it.
And as for this business about Mary being a ‘hero of faith’, please note she is not even mentioned in Hebrews 11! I don’t see any churches named after Samson…or Noah…As for the eucharist, well… see the Second Commandment (although it doesn’t mentioned baked good specifically…hmmmm) The eucharist parade makes the golden calf party at Sinai seem downright reasonable.
“Derogatory adjectives like “twisted,” and loaded terms like “extrabiblical,” only serve to shut down dialogue and understanding between Catholics and Evangelicals, and does little for convincing Catholics of the possible rightness of Evangelical claims.”
~If I may add my two cents, it’s not about what anybody claims, it’s about what is or is not true. If somebody tells me that my big, ugly shoe is on fire, I might not like what they said but if I don’t act on it I’m gonna have a burnt foot.
Sure, in a one on one situation it is IMPERATIVE to be led by the Spirit in approaching that person in a way best suited to the moment, but this is a blog which many types of people will read, and while you make the accusation of assumption, you also are making an assumption: that this writing wasn’t Spirit led.
It’s similar to telling someone that they are immoral for forcing their morality upon another. We’ve all gotta leave room for grace, but mroe room for examining the facts.
Chad,
Amen brother! The reason why I come to this site is to attempt to dispel the erroneous and sometimes very derogatory statements made about the Catholic Church. It seems as though John needs a “common Protestant enemy” to bash rather than feed his flock with the love of Christ. It also seems to me that if one disagrees with his “doctorine” then one is apostate.
Steve, with all due respect, I would venture to guess that you and other ex-Catholics never really put any effort into really learning what and why the Catholic Church teaches what she does before leaving her.
John,
You said:
Of course, the remedy for evangelical apathy about the church is not a return to the twisted, extrabiblical ecclesiology of the Roman Catholic Church. Evangelical Protestants must approach ecclesiology as they have soteriology—from the perspective of Scripture alone. Unfortunately even among many Protestants, too many of the popular notions about the church are laden with human traditions, superstitions, and other holdovers from the medieval Catholic Church. Scripture alone can give us a sound understanding and appreciation of the true role and nature of the church
I say:
Scripture’s view of The Church is very clear:
1Tim 3:15 - Church called “pillar and foundation of truth”
Eph 1:22 and 23: “gave him as head over all things to the church”, which is his body, the fullness of the one who fills all things in every way.
Mt 16:18-19 - upon this rock I will build my Church (not churches) Also, the power to bind and loose.
Mt 16:18 - gates of hell will never prevail against Christ’s church
Jn 14:16 - Holy Spirit will be with you always
Jn 10:16 - there will be one fold and one shepherd.
Eph 4:3-6 - one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father
Eph 3:21 – to him be glory in the church to all generations for ever and ever.
Mt 18:17 – tell it to THE Church; if he refuses to listen even to THE Church… (must be visible)
What did the early Church fathers say about “The Church” and what was it called?
http://www.catholic.com/library/What_Catholic_Means.asp
My favorite is from St. Augustine:
In the Catholic Church . . . a few spiritual men attain [wisdom] in this life, in such a way that . . . they know it without any doubting, while the rest of the multitude finds [its] greatest safety not in lively understanding but in the simplicity of believing. . . . [T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in her bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority,
inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 [A.D. 397]).
David, the spirit of your response provides excellent fodder for strawmen arguments for people who want to point out how Christ doesn’t change peoples lives for the better, but makes them even more hateful.
Mark…and you wonder why there’s a phenomenon of Godless relativism. Your truth vs. my truth. Funny how we can read the same things and come to different conclusions about Truth. This is why I made the point about humility. Even though we think we’ve got it all figured out, and have the correct scriptural interpretation, there’s always someone who knows more or has a wider perspective from which to view history and theology.
Gerry,
That Augustine quote says it all! It’s exactly what I was trying to say but, of course, don’t have the eloquence.
Chad,
I am afraid that you were not a former southern baptist church member. In my pure and honest opinion, you just had attended a batpist church. It’s like a former church goer converting to a jehova’s witnesses. and then, he /she misunderstood their past conversion that was not really geniune. I hope and pray that you must reconsider yourself as geniunly a born agian church member, when you attened a baptist church.
in love
To Chad:
It’s not arrogance when ppl much like yourself think that heresy and teaching doctrines that force ppl down the road to hell deserve clemency! Ever think that its wrong for Roman Catholic church to teach a damning faith? Indeed, many men, Luther for instance, stood up against them and I also long for the day more ppl do also. You think I’m being harsh I’ll just said what Christ said:
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.” Matthew 23:14-16
To be fair, if Roman Catholicism is right than Evangelicals are heretics teaching a most dangerous error! I’ll admit that b/c either one is right or wrong and the costs are peoples souls. That’s why you have Roman Catholic apologists on the rampage against evangelicals and I understand, b/c its a huge difference we’re talking about (ie Dave Armstrong and CO0
@ Gerry
Go read:
http://www.christiantruth.com/mt16.html
It clarifies all this the church fathers view which were in no way or shape Roman Catholic.
I feel bad for you b/c ppl have shown you only half of the page of what the church father’s said, b/c if you would’ve saw the other half you would plainly see that they did not believe in anything like Rome.
Please read the link (anybody) and see for yourself.
PS Lots of ppl have theological training of some sort or know what they are talking about. And that’s why we are all shaking our heads and feel sorry about how misled you are when you think Augustine says “the Catholic church” it means Roman Catholicism. I don’t know how many times ppl have pointed this out to you before but:
The world “catholic” is derived from the greek word for “universal” so Augustine is talking about the members of the true church, which unfortunately Rome is not part of.
If you can’t get the basics right how can you understand the deep stuff of God?
John,
You call us “Roman Catholic” but The Church does not.
Look at the catechism..it says The Catechism of The Catholic
Church not Roman Catholic Church.
It is The Catholic Church and always has been until the Church of England coined the phrase to try and separate it from the Catholic Church. As hard as you or others who try to call themselves or The Church catholic with a small “c” it will not work. It has and will ALWAYS be called The Catholic Church. Since the fathers and history are very clear about The Catholic Church all you can do is put up a smoke screen and say Roman Catholic…nice try but history and the facts are on our side. You can only muddy the waters because you cannot accept The Catholic Church being the True Church. Maybe it is you that is wrong..have you ever thought of that?
you stated earlier:
To be fair, if Roman Catholicism is right than Evangelicals are heretics teaching a most dangerous error! I’ll admit that b/c either one is right or wrong and the costs are peoples souls. That’s why you have Roman Catholic apologists on the rampage against evangelicals and I understand, b/c its a huge difference we’re talking about (ie Dave Armstrong and CO0
I say: If you are a student of history, the only other churches you will find apart from the Catholic Church are heretical or schismatic. Show me the names of another Church other than the Catholic Church that can claim to be founded by Christ and can trace it’s bishops back to the Apostles. If you name the Orthodox, they believe 97% of what we do sans the Papacy..
The owness is on you to prove that The Catholic Church is not the Catholic Church that Augustine writes of not me..
John,
First thing to notice is that the title of the book is “Retractations”, not “Retractions”. Augustine does not retract any previously held beliefs in the book, he comments on his previous writing, that’s all.
The article you refer to was written as a response to former baptist Steve Ray’s book on the Peter and the Keys. His very thorough reponse is linked below..
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/web_aug.htm
@ Gerry
I don’t think you are not understanding what I am saying.
And neither have you addressed any of my concerns, but put smart little comments that have nothing to do with what I said (a la smoke screen extraordinaire…)
All true believers compromise the Catholic Church. And Roman Catholicism in its current is not part of the “Catholic Church.”
You are the one that is putting your Roman Catholic church into the Universal/Catholic church not me!
May God have mercy on your soul, b/c I was once blind as you.
edit:
I do not mean all Roman Catholics now are not part of the Universal/Catholic church, I believe I have met one who is a genuine believer and perhaps a couple others.
I hope that I’m not being too hostile Gerry, but I do wish that you would know Christ as I do (you prb feel the same, no?) and maybe our paths will cross one day.
John,
I feel that you have not addressed my issues either.
You and others really have to stretch the obvious to come up with another interpretation of The Catholic Church than the fathers speak of other than the obvious one..The Catholic Church is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow as Christ is since it is His Body.
You and others mistakenly believe in The Church as an invisible body of believers..your theology is dependant upon it..
Vincent of Lerins
“I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: that whether I or anyone else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they arise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways: first, by the authority of the divine law [Scripture], and then by the tradition of the Catholic Church. But here some one perhaps will ask, ‘Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation?’ For this reason: Because, owing to the depth of holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another, so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are men. . . . Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various errors, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation” (The Notebooks 2:1–2 [A.D. 434]).
So not only does this church father speak of the Tradition of The Catholic Church, but also speaks of The authority of The Catholic Church’s interpretation of scripture. How can an “invisible Church” have authority???
Do you believe that Augustine was part of The True Church?
I know I’m not really in the throes of this conversation, but I do want to make a few comments.
First of all, I don’t know how you guys are meaning your comments, but just by reading it sounds a little harsh or biting to me as a 3rd party. You might need to examine yourselves on that.
But anyway, Gerry, let me say that I disagree with Vincent of Lerins. Now, of course, based on what you believe to be authoritative, my saying that is ridiculous. Vincent himself declares… well… himself to be authoritative, so how could one disagree, right?
That’s precisely it, though. There is no authority outside of Scripture. The appeal to tradition might be helpful in aiding understanding, but it is in no way authoritative. To say that it is denies the perspicuity and usefulness of Scripture. I could quote a bunch of verses from the Bible that you’ve already heard, but I suppose they would have little effect as it seems your heart has been hardened against their true meaning.
But even the Church Fathers, to whom you do turn, agree:
In the Holy Scriptures alone is the instruction of religion announced—to which let no man add, from which let no man detract—which are sufficient in themselves for the enunciation of the truth. — Athanasius
It is evidently a falling away from the faith, and a proof of great presumption, to neglect any part of what is written, or to introduce anything that is not written. — Basil
When there is a question of Divine things, would it not be a folly rashly and blindly to receive the opinions of others, when we have a rule by which we can examine everything? I mean the Divine law. It is for this reason that I conjure you all, without resting in the slightest degree on the judgment of others, to consult the Scriptures. — Chrysostom
In the two testaments every word that pertaineth unto God may be sought and discussed, and out of them all knowledge of things may be understood. And if anything remains which Holy Scripture does not determine, no other third scripture ought to be received to authorize any knowledge, but we must “commit to the fire” what remains, that is, reserve it unto God. — Origen
Let me also acknowledge in your defense that you have presented Scripture, and even Scripture first. While I do believe you’re drawing and unnecessary line between “Church singular” and “Churches plural.” There is but one Church, which I know you’d agree with. But this one Church is not all those who call themselves part of the Catholic Church, but it is the Church made up exclusively of true believers in Christ, saved by grace alone through faith alone.
This is what I was talking about on the other day’s post — about how the unity called for in the true Church is maintained by faithful brothers who “expel the wicked man” from among them (1Co 5:11-12). The true Church is indeed invisible, and tares do indeed grow along with the wheat, so close that uprooting the tares would uproot the wheat as well (Matt 13:29). Also, in the parable of the sower (Matt 13:3-9), notice the proximity of the soils: that one sower scattering the same seed can have it fall on four different types of soil. But the true identity of the soil is hidden just by looking. One can only tell by the fruit yielded (or not yielded).
All that to say that I think there is STRONG Scriptural support for the idea of an invisible Church made up entirely of true, saved Christians, as well as a visible Church made up of both those saved Christians and unsaved unbelievers. The verses that refer to the unity of the Church speaks of the invisible (or True) Church, and canonical authority only comes from.. well.. the canon (Sola Scriptura).
I recognize that there’s potential for a lot of, “Sure that’s what you say, but I say this, while I categorically deny a-priori everything that you’ve just said.” I just thought that it was necessary to give the Biblical position, (1) in hope that you’d be enlightened to understanding (Ps 19:8, 119:30, 2Tim 2:25-26) and/or (2) for the edification of those reading (1Tim 6:20, 2Tim 1:13-14).
“But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith” (1 Tim 1:5).
MIKE
Mike,
I appreciate your comments and I will be more diligent in checking my tone. Thank you.
In mentioning the canon of scripture..was it a visible or invisible Church that decided on the canon?
Was it a visible or invisible Church that convend the councils from the book of Acts, Nicea up until Vatican II?
And as far as the scriptures, of course they are authoritative but only in the right context and interpretation.
Nice comment Mike. I will be more careful w/ my tone.
To Gerry,
I would say that both the visible and parts of the invisible church were there at the great church councils. ( And the books were already Scripture before they were canonized).
Furthermore, the Eastern and Western churches were there and even further the many of the great church councils were not in the West, but in the East.
As far as the Catholic church goes,
I believe the Western church was legit a long, long, long time ago but Rome in its current configuration is not legit in God’s eyes. Much like in the OT when Judaism as a religion was legit, but now is no longer legit in God’s eyes.
The same would go for certain Evangelical churches that started legit, but fell to world.
I already gave you a link:
http://www.christiantruth.com/mt16.html
That shows my view about Roman Ecclesiology (ie on invisible vs visible). Once again, the door to true faith is always open.
PC,
I realize this is a relatively anonymous platform, but in the name of Christian civility, please do not assume you know whether I was genuinely Souhern Baptist or not - which by implication borders on you questioning my salvation. That is reserved for God alone.
In a sense I owe my salvation to growing up Baptist. If it was not for that culture, which puts utmost emphasis on taking your faith seriously and making it an every day part of your life, I don’t know where I’d be. My parents also deserve tons of credit, as they made it very clear in action and word, that church and faith in Jesus Christ needed to be part of my life.
Please accept that, through prayer and a lot of thoughtful consideration, I believe the Holy Spirit has guided me to the Catholic Church. I was confirmed back in 2001 and it has been what I longed for all my life, in depth of spirituality and understanding of my faith in Jesus Christ.
John,
I’m not sure I understood your first sentence. Do you mean to say the Catholic Church teaches clemency for non-believers? I’m not sure that’s what the Church teaches. What it does teach is that neither you nor I are in a position to judge someone’s salvation - that is up to one’s personal decision about faith (which the Church may ratify through excommunication if it is public) and God. So I tend to personally stay away from conversations about whether people of a particular Christian denomination (or any faith for that matter) are going to be damned or not. In short, it’s outside my given role as creature.
Also, I don’t believe heretical beliefs, in and of themselves, are necessarily a recipe for damnation - although they can lead down that road.
When it comes to apologists of any stripe, going on “rampages,” I’m against that. Usually, if I hear some Catholic or Protestant apologist getting all bent out of shape, it’s a sign they aren’t as confident in what they believe as they pretend.
Chad,
I couldn’t agree more with your comments about the love of your past before your coversion to the Church that Christ founded. I read a good deal of coversion stories from former Protestants who treasure their faith journey and love of Christ and scripture. They realized that in becoming Catholic their love of both Christ and scripture was more real and complete. Read the link below on a former protestant finding the True Visible Church.
http://www.chnetwork.org/cbconv.htm
John,
There were many letters floating around that were thought to be scripture, but only until the councils of Rome, Carthage and Hippo was there a definitive listing of inspired writings that was accepted and is still valid today. The letters of scripture were infallibly defined and restated in the Council of Trent. So I would ask why you don’t have the Deuterocanonicals in your bible that were part of the original canon?
Of course the Church had councils in the East and the West BUT were all united under the Bishop of Rome. The council of Contantinople was held in the East and one of the decrees is written below:
Council of Constantinople I
“The bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honor after the bishop of Rome, because his city is New Rome” (canon 3 [A.D. 381]).
We can dialogue further here or you may e-mail me @ spo099@aol.com and we could possibly speak over the phone in greater detail if you would like (I would). You are welcome back Home any time, my brother.
God bless.
Thanks, Gerry. I’ll read it today.
@ Gerry
If I have time Gerry - I’ll give you an email
@ Chad
I think “heresy” means doctrines that are damning (or at least that’s how I’m using the word.
Also, though I’m not the final arbiter of salvation, the Bible is very clear on that issue and if anyone does not believe in sola fide, well the Bible is clear on this person’s eternal destiny…
Gerry,
You said: “The letters of scripture were infallibly defined and restated in the Council of Trent”. I’m assuming that you being RCC think that a council can make an infallible decree. This is the whole gist between the Protestant position of Scripture alone and RCC’s views. The people who thought other books were Scripture tended to be heretics, gnostics, rejecters of the apostolic faith. God was not waiting around to see when the church would canonize His Word, that was just for the churches own discernment.
Your council of Trent calls a person who believes in salvation by faith alone in Jesus alone an accursed person. Do you agree with that?
Thank you John, Eph4:5-6.
John, at first glance I don’t know if we disagree on the definition of heresy, but it does need to be distinguished from apostasy, which is the only sure recipe for damnation. At any given time we may hold private or public beliefs about God that ultimately are heretical, and not enlightened by the Holy Spirit. One is a mistaken belief out of earnestness (hopefully) and the other is a definite “No” to God.
Sole fide is not clear to me from the Bible (Book of James). That’s quite a statement you made, though, because according to you the vast majority of Christians, not only today but throughout history, are in Hell. If I’m hearing you right you’re saying that only those few since Luther who made a genuine decision for Christ, got saved at one moment, and believe in sole fide will be in Heaven.
Dan W,
I think that you will agree that in the 4th century the Arians were going around saying that Christ was a mere man and not God and quoting scripture (JW’s of old) and the Church convened the Council of Nicea and infallibly defined the Trinity and that Jesus was one person with 2 natures (Divine and human)and gave us the Nicean creed. Without the authority of The Church expounding the correct interpretation of scripture there are as Martin Luther said there are as many sects and creeds as there are heads..the fruit of sola scriptura. Read in his own words below:
“This one will not hear of Baptism, and that one denies the sacrament, another puts a world between this and the last day: some teach that Christ is not God, some say this, some say that: there are as many sects and creeds as there are heads. No yokel is so rude but when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself inspired by the Holy Ghost and must be a prophet” De Wette III, 61. quoted in O’Hare, THE FACTS ABOUT LUTHER, 208.
“Noblemen, townsmen, peasants, all classes understand the Evangelium better than I or St. Paul; they are now wise and think themselves more learned than all the ministers.” Walch XIV, 1360. quoted in O’Hare, Ibid, 209.
He also said:
“We concede — as we must — that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?” Sermon on the gospel of St. John, chaps. 14 - 16 (1537), in vol. 24 of LUTHER’S WORKS, St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1961, 304.
St Augustine says it better:
“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the AUTHORITY of the CATHOLIC CHURCH.”
Against the Letter of Mani 5,6, 397 A.D.
“By the same word, by the same Sacrament you were born, but you will not come to the same inheritance of eternal life, unless you return to the CATHOLIC CHURCH.”
St. Augustine, Sermons, 3, 391 A.D.
“This Church is holy, the one Church, the true Church, the Catholic Church, fighting as she does against all heresies. She can fight, but she cannot be beaten. All heresies are expelled from her, like the useless loppings pruned from a vine. She remains fixed in her root, in her vine, in her love. The gates of hell shall NOT conquer her.”
St. Augustine, Sermon to Catechumens, on the Creed, 6,14, 395 A.D.
As far as faith alone, there is only one place in scripture that “faith” and “alone” are mentioned together. In the book of James verse 24 it is very explicit in rejecting “faith alone” as are verses 20, 22 and 26.
17 So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18 Indeed someone might say, “You have faith and I have works.” Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.
19 You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble.
20 Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works.
23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called “the friend of God.”
24 See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
25 And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route?
26 For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead
@ Chad
I agree with your “heresy” vs “apostate”, but I do figure in naivety (like believing something about the Trinity that isn’t true out of pure ignorance) isn’t damning. But if you hold on to heresy ie understand and deny the Trinity (a la JWs and Mormons) your destiny seems pretty clear cut in the Bible. So i guess what I’m saying is my definition of
heretic = your definition of apostate.
As for Hell and ppl before Luther?
Are you asking me if the gate is narrow or if the gate is wide?
We both know the answer to that the gate is narrow.
Before Luther you say? I see it as at least from the time of Augustine - his views on original sin, faith, and predestination = sola fide.
I don’t know how many ppl between the end of the Apostolic age and the Reformation were saved - but I bet its the same amount at any time of history - NOT MANY AT ALL and I know for sure NONE DESERVED TO BE SAVED.
But if you’re asking me if much of the Western and Eastern Church teachings were the ruin of many ppl during those ages - Yes! But was Augustian thought and sola fide alive during that time? YES! Here’s a link from this blog:
http://www.sfpulpit.com/page/9/
You’ll find it an interesting read.
Remember:
None deserve grace.
Few find it.
Chad the door is always open to you.
@ Gerry
here’s Augustine saying “the Rock” is not Peter:
n a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’…But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable (The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1).
Here some more (including some giving the rest of the Apostles equal authority):
But whom say ye that I am? Peter answered, ‘Thou art the Christ, The Son of the living God.’ One for many gave the answer, Unity in many. Then said the Lord to him, ‘Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonas: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.’ Then He added, ‘and I say unto thee.’ As if He had said, ‘Because thou hast said unto Me, “Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God;” I also say unto thee, “Thou art Peter.” ’ For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. ‘Therefore,’ he saith, ‘Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock’ which Thou hast confessed, upon this rock which Thou hast acknowledged, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;’ that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, ‘will I build My Church.’ I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon Thee.
For men who wished to be built upon men, said, ‘I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas,’ who is Peter. But others who did not wish to built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, ‘But I am of Christ.’ And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, ‘Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?’ And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter. This same Peter therefore who had been by the Rock pronounced ‘blessed,’ bearing the figure of the Church (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VI, St. Augustin, Sermon XXVI.1-4, pp. 340-341).
And this Church, symbolized in its generality, was personified in the Apostle Peter, on account of the primacy of his apostleship. For, as regards his proper personality, he was by nature one man, by grace one Christian, by still more abounding grace one, and yet also, the first apostle; but when it was said to him, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven,’ he represented the universal Church, which in this world is shaken by divers temptations, that come upon it like torrents of rain, floods and tempests, and falleth not, because it is founded upon a rock (petra), from which Peter received his name. For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, ‘On this rock will I build my Church,’ because Peter had said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VII, St. Augustin, On the Gospel of John, Tractate 124.5).
Before his passion the Lord Jesus, as you know, chose those disciples of his, whom he called apostles. Among these it was only Peter who almost everywhere was given the privilege of representing the whole Church. It was in the person of the whole Church, which he alone represented, that he was privileged to hear, ‘To you will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ (Mt 16:19). After all, it isn’t just one man that received these keys, but the Church in its unity. So this is the reason for Peter’s acknowledged pre–eminence, that he stood for the Church’s universality and unity, when he was told, ‘To you I am entrusting,’ what has in fact been entrusted to all.
I mean, to show you that it is the Church which has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, listen to what the Lord says in another place to all his apostles: ‘Receive the Holy Spirit;’ and straightway, ‘Whose sins you forgive, they will be forgiven them; whose sins you retain, they will be retained’ (Jn 20:22-23). This refers to the keys, about which it is said, ‘whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven’ (Mt 16:19). But that was said to Peter. To show you that Peter at that time stood for the universal Church, listen to what is said to him, what is said to all the faithful, the saints: ‘If your brother sins against you, correct him between you and himself alone’ (John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (Hyde Park: New City, 1994), Sermons, III/8 (273-305A), On the Saints, Sermon 295.1-3, pp. 197-198).
John,
Augustine’s comments you wrote above do not take anything away from Peter’s primacy at all. Of course Jesus is the Main Rock, BUT as Augustine said “that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter.” Obsolutely, Peter gets the authority from Jesus not the other way around, agreed. I also agree that the other Apostles and modern day Catholic Bishops share in the authority of The Church with the Pope. Peter and the successive Popes are referred to as “The first among equals” as he writes below:
“Quite rightly too did the Lord after his resurrection entrust his sheep to Peter to be fed. It’s not, you see, that he alone among the disciples was fit to feed the Lord’s sheep; but when Christ speaks to one man, unity is being commended to us. And he first speaks to Peter, because Peter is first among the apostles.”
(Sermon 295:4 (A.D. 410), in WOA3, 8:199)
Steve Ray comments on Webster’s arguement that you pose from his works:
Augustine was not steadfast in his interpretation of Matthew 16:18. Above, Augustine equated the rock with Peter’s faith, Peter’s successors, and Peter himself. It was during his controversies with the Manicheans, Donatists, and Pelagians that he emphasized the role of Christ and identified “this rock” with Christ. In his dealings with the Manicheans, the nature of God was in the forefront; with the Donatist, it was the nature of the Church and clergy; with the Pelagians, it was the nature of grace and its originator, Jesus Christ. Augustine equated “this rock” with Christ not to downplay Peter’s primacy, rather to emphasize Jesus Christ. Against all these heresies, Augustine stressed that the Church’s foundation and grace rested upon a divine and not a human person. Nevertheless, Augustine remained steadfast in his understanding of Peter’s primacy and the primacy of the Roman See. Augustine did not reject the Petrine interpretation, in favor of which he cites Ambrose’s hymn, but leaves it to the reader to choose. Simon remains a rock, a secondary rock dependent on the Rock-Christ, for Augustine writes, ‘Peter having been named after this rock ‘
(Retractations 1:21).
Augustine also says:
“Number the bishops from the see of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom, That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail.”
Psalmus contra partem Donati, 18 (A.D. 393),GCC 51
“Let us not listen to those who deny that the Church of God is able to forgive all sins. They are wretched indeed, because they do not recognize in Peter the rock and they refuse to believe that the keys of heaven, lost from their own hands, have been given to the Church.”
Christian Combat, 31:33(A.D. 397), in JUR,3:51
“For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: ‘Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !’ The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: — Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of ‘mountain men,’ or Cutzupits, by which they were known.”
To Generosus, Epistle 53:2(A.D. 400), in NPNF1,I:298
“When, therefore, He had said to His disciples, ‘Will ye also go away?” Peter, that Rock, answered with the voice of all, “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.’ ”
Homilies on John, Tract 11:5(A.D. 417), in NPNF1,VII:76
“And the Lord, to him to whom a little before He had said, ‘Blessed thou art, and upon this Rock I will build my Church,’ saith, ‘Go back behind, Satan, an offence thou art to Me.’ Why therefore ‘Satan’ is he, that a little before was ‘blessed,’ and a ‘Rock’ ?”
In Psalms, 56[55]:14[PL 36, 656] (A.D. 418),in NPNF1,VIII:223
“Peter, who had confessed Him as the Son of God, and in that confession had been called the rock upon which the Church should be built.”
In Psalms, 69:4[PL 36, 869] (A.D. 418), in Butler, 251
“And if a Jew asks us why we do that, we sound from the rock, we say, This Peter did, this Paul did: from the midst of the rocks we give our voice. But that rock, Peter himself, that great mountain, when he prayed and saw that vision, was watered from above.”
In Psalms, 104[103]:16(A.D. 418),in NPNF1,VIII:513
“Among these [apostles] it was only Peter who almost everywhere was given privilege of representing the whole Church. It was in the person of the whole Church, which he alone represented, that he was privileged to hear, ‘To you will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ (Mt 16:19)… Quite rightly too did the Lord after his resurrection entrust his sheep to Peter to be fed. It’s not, you see, that he alone among the disciples was fit to feed the Lord’s sheep; but when Christ speaks to one man, unity is being commended to us. And he first speaks to Peter, because Peter is first among the apostles.”
(Sermon 295:2-4 (A.D. 410), in WOA3,8:197-199)
“So does the Church act in blessed hope through this troublous life; and this Church symbolized in its generality, was personified in the Apostle Peter, on account of the primacy of his apostleship.”
(On the Gospel of John, Tract 124:5 (A.D. 416), in NPNF1, VII:450)
“For as some things are said which seem peculiarly to apply to the Apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning, unless when referred to the Church, whom he is acknowledged to have figuratively represented, on account of the primacy which he bore among the Disciples.”
(On the Psalms,108[109]:1(A.D. 418),in NPNF1,VIII:536)
“This gospel that has just been read about Christ the Lord, and how he walked over the surface of the sea, and about the apostle Peter, and how, by growing afraid as he walked, he staggered, and by losing confidence began to submerge, until by confessing he again emerged; this gospel is advising us to take the sea as meaning the present age and this world, and the apostle Peter as representing the one and only Church. Peter, you see, is the first in the class of the apostles, and the readiest in expressing love of Christ, and is often the one who answers for all … So then, this self-same Peter, blessed by being surnamed Rocky from the rock, representing the person of the Church, holding the chief place in the apostolic ranks…”
(Sermon 76:1-3 (A.D. 412), in WOA3, 3:311-312)
John,
We think we have very different understandings of how God’s grace works.
Gerry,
I think it is enlightening how you help us understand the history surrounding the writings of Augustine, i.e., you can pinpoint the particular heresies he was addressing by the emphasis he places on different aspects of the scriptures.
It is easy to cherry-pick a few passages from Augustine, or any of the Church Fathers…and actually anyone for that matter, and get a very narrow view. This is especially true if your reading history backwards trying to reconstruct the pieces into a the particular view you hold. Not very objective, or honest.
Chad,
You are very astute! That’s exactly what happens. Since the protestants do not have a history before the 1500’s, they must try and force their theological square pegs in the round hole of 2000 yrs of consistent Catholic teaching.
John,
BTW, you never answered my question concerning Augustine. Was he in the “True Church”?
@ Chad
Did you read the links I put on here. I know its a lot, but the lineage we claim can be CLEARLY traced back to the Apostles –> I might even do that…
If you read my http://www.christiantruths.com link you will see that the cherry pickers are Roman Catholics not Evangelicals –> go see for yourself (not to mention things like the dispute of whether Peter ever was a bishop of Rome and how Rome had a plurality of elders…)
@ Gerry
Sorry, lots of stuff on here, didn’t see that question.
Yes, I believe Augustine was in the true Church - he depends on Christ alone and faith alone for his justification.
Everyone in the church does.
John,
I went to the Christian Truths website and they wanted me to sign up for some money making scheme. Did you get the link right?
Regardless, it really boils down to plausibility. I’ve read different arguments by fundamentalist apologists, tracing their lineage to the apostles, and I am not convinced. Even outside religious circles, where there’s nothing to gain either way, most academic historians would find the methodology of fundamentalists unsound, and consequently their conclusions outside the realm of plausibility. All that combined, I just don’t give much credence to people saying, for instance, that somehow early Christians believed in something like faith alone or scripture alone.
Even from just a logical/life experience point of view, it just doesn’t ring true for me…and the fruit it bears I find dubious.
Also, it seems hard for me to believe that the Protestant doctrine of scripture alone could have come out of a time prior to the Gutenburg (sp?) press. When 99% of the population can’t read, I find it hard to believe the Church was saying “turn to the scriptures” for everything you need to know to guide your life. Again, it just isn’t plausible or even something that would be relevant to most believers.
John,
Did you read link I supplied in reply to your “christian truth” link? I linked it again below and it thoroughly answers Webster’s claims. I read your links, so I would hope that you can do the same if our dialogue is to be complete.
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/web_aug.htm
If you believe that Augustine was in the “True Church” then you can’t overlook all the rest of his writings like his belief in the Papacy, Tradition, the seven sacraments, Purgatory, the authority of the Catholic Church, etc.. A little sampling below…
On the True Church:
“We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is Catholic and which is called Catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard” (The True Religion 7:12 [A.D. 390]).
“We believe in the holy Church, that is, the Catholic Church; for heretics and schismatics call their own congregations churches. But heretics violate the faith itself by a false opinion about God; schismatics, however, withdraw from fraternal love by hostile separations, although they believe the same things we do. Consequently, neither heretics nor schismatics belong to the Catholic Church; not heretics, because the Church loves God, and not schismatics, because the Church loves neighbor” (Faith and Creed 10:21 [A.D. 393]).
“”If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the gospel, what would you [Mani] answer him when he says, ‘I do not believe’? Indeed, I would not believe in the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so” (ibid., 5:6).
On Tradition:
“[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).
“But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation” (ibid., 5:26[37]).
“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church” (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).
On Apostolic Succession:
“[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 [A.D. 397]).
On the Authority of the Pope:
“There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 5 [A.D. 397]).
“[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!” (Sermons 131:10 [A.D. 411]).
On Peter as first Pope and his Primacy:
“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).
“Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).
“Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies” (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).
“Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?” (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).
On the sacrifice of The Mass:
” ‘And was carried in His Own Hands:’ how ‘carried in His Own Hands’? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, ‘This is My Body.’ ”
Augustine,On the Psalms,33:1,10(A.D. 392-418),in NPNF1,VIII:73
On confession:
“All mortal sins are to be submitted to the keys of the Church and all can be forgiven; but recourse to these keys is the only, the necessary, and the certain way to forgiveness. Unless those who are guilty of grevious sin have recourse to the power of the keys, they cannot hope for eternal salvation. Open your lips, them, and confess your sins to the priest. Confession alone is the true gate to Heaven.”
Augustine,Christian Combat(A.D. 397)
On Confirmation:
“Why, therefore, is the Head itself, whence that ointment of unity descended, that is, the spiritual fragrance of brotherly love,–why, I say, is the Head itself exposed to your resistance, while it testifies and declares that “repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem”? And by this ointment you wish the sacrament of chrism to be understood, which is indeed holy as among the class of visible signs, like baptism itself…”
Augustine,Letters of Petilian the Donatist,2,104:239(A.D. 403),in NPNF1,IV:592
On Sacraments of Marraige and Holy Orders:
“Therefore the good of marriage throughout all nations and all men stands in the occasion of begetting, and faith of chastity: but, so far as pertains unto the People of God, also in the sanctity of the Sacrament, by reason of which it is unlawful for one who leaves her husband, even when she has been put away, to be married to another, so long as her husband lives, no not even for the sake of bearing children: and, whereas this is the alone cause, wherefore marriage takes place, not even where that very thing, wherefore it takes place, follows not, is the marriage bond loosed, save by the death of the husband or wife. In like manner as if there take place an ordination of clergy in order to form a congregation of people, although the congregation of people follow not, yet there remains in the ordained persons the Sacrament of Ordination; and if, for any fault, any be removed from his office, he will not be without the Sacrament of the Lord once for all set upon him, albeit continuing unto condemnation.”
Augustine,On the Good of Marriage,24:32(A.D. 401),in NPNF1,III:412
On Purgatory:
Augustine
“There is an ecclesiastical discipline, as the faithful know, when the names of the martyrs are read aloud in that place at the altar of God, where prayer is not offered for them. Prayer, however, is offered for other dead who are remembered. It is wrong to pray for a martyr, to whose prayers we ought ourselves be commended” (Sermons 159:1 [A.D. 411]).
“But by the prayers of the holy Church, and by the salvific sacrifice, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided, that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. The whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the sacrifice itself; and the sacrifice is offered also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, then, works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it possible for these things to be useful to them after death” (ibid., 172:2).
“Temporal punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by some after death, by some both here and hereafter, but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But not all who suffer temporal punishments after death will come to eternal punishments, which are to follow after that judgment” (The City of God 21:13 [A.D. 419]).
“That there should be some fire even after this life is not incredible, and it can be inquired into and either be discovered or left hidden whether some of the faithful may be saved, some more slowly and some more quickly in the greater or lesser degree in which they loved the good things that perish, through a certain purgatorial fire” (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Charity 18:69 [A.D. 421]).
“The time which interposes between the death of a man and the final resurrection holds souls in hidden retreats, accordingly as each is deserving of rest or of hardship, in view of what it merited when it was living in the flesh. Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator [Mass] is offered for them, or when alms are given in the Church. But these things are of profit to those who, when they were alive, merited that they might afterward be able to be helped by these things. There is a certain manner of living, neither so good that there is no need of these helps after death, nor yet so wicked that these helps are of no avail after death” (ibid., 29:109).
The Church that Augustine belonged to was The Catholic Church, so if you believe that Augustine was in the True Church then you must be part of Her.
As he said:
“By the same word, by the same Sacrament you were born, but you will not come to the same inheritance of eternal life, unless you return to the CATHOLIC CHURCH.”
St. Augustine, Sermons, 3, 391 A.D.
“This Church is holy, the one Church, the true Church, the Catholic Church, fighting as she does against all heresies. She can fight, but she cannot be beaten. All heresies are expelled from her, like the useless loppings pruned from a vine. She remains fixed in her root, in her vine, in her love. The gates of hell shall NOT conquer her.”
St. Augustine, Sermon to Catechumens, on the Creed, 6,14, 395 A.D.
The Roman Catholic issue was discussed at length in a prior series here on Pulpit. We would direct our readers to that series, and the comments found there, for more on this particular subject.
Scripture, Tradition, and Rome (Part 1)
Scripture, Tradition, and Rome (Part 2)
Scripture, Tradition, and Rome (Part 3)
Scripture, Tradition, and Rome (Part 4)
Scripture, Tradition, and Rome (Part 5)
Scripture, Tradition, and Rome (Part 6)
Rome in Review
@ Gerry
You know that Webster has written 3 rebuttals? And that your link is the Ray’s response to Websters 1st rebuttal?
It’s kinda hectic. I’ll get back to you when (and if) i can read them.
@ Chad
Sorry about the link its http://www.christiantruth.com !
John,
I am interested in your take about Augustine’s Catholic beliefs as mentioned in my prior post, since you admitted he is part of the “true Church”.
Nate,
Since the topic is The Church, I will quote some of the fathers that you quote in defense of the sola’s on their view of The Church. I can address the sola’s at another time shortly. First off, a very small sampling of Tertullian.
I apologize for the long post but I believe that it is releveant to the discussion at hand.
Tertullian in chap. 6 “Prescription against Heretics” says:
“In the Lord’s apostles we possess our authority; for even they did not of themselves choose to introduce anything, but faithfully delivered to the nations (of mankind) the doctrine which they had received from Christ. If, therefore, even “an angel from heaven should preach any other gospel” (than theirs), he would be called accursed by us”
(He is speaking of an authoritative Church and Tradition)
Chapter 15. Heretics Not to Be Allowed to Argue Out of the Scriptures. The Scriptures, in Fact, Do Not Belong to Them.
We are therefore come to (the gist of) our position; for at this point we were aiming, and for this we were preparing in the preamble of our address (which we have just completed),—so that we may now join issue on the contention to which our adversaries challenge us. They put forward the Scriptures, and by this insolence of theirs they at once influence some. In the encounter itself, however, they weary the strong, they catch the weak, and dismiss waverers with a doubt. Accordingly, we oppose to them this step above all others, of not admitting them to any discussion of the Scriptures.
If in these lie their resources, before they can use them, it ought to be clearly seen to whom belongs the possession of the Scriptures, that none may be admitted to the use thereof who has no title at all to the privilege.
(He speaks of the scriptures belonging to The Church not individuals.
Chapter 19. Appeal, in Discussion of Heresy, Lies Not to the Scriptures. The Scriptures Belong Only to Those Who Have the Rule of Faith.
Our appeal, therefore, must not be made to the Scriptures; nor must controversy be admitted on points in which victory will either be impossible, or uncertain, or not certain enough. But even if a discussion from the Scriptures should not turn out in such a way as to place both sides on a par, (yet) the natural order of things would require that this point should be first proposed, which is now the only one which we must discuss: “With whom lies that very faith to which the Scriptures belong. From what and through whom, and when, and to whom, has been handed down that rule, by which men become Christians?” For wherever it shall be manifest that the true Christian rule and faith shall be, there will likewise be the true Scriptures and expositions thereof, and all the Christian traditions.
(Again, he equates the scriptures belonging to The Church and agreeing with Traditionas the valid interpretation)
Chapter 20. Christ First Delivered the Faith. The Apostles Spread It; They Founded Churches as the Depositories Thereof. That Faith, Therefore, is Apostolic, Which Descended from the Apostles, Through Apostolic Churches.
Christ Jesus our Lord (may He bear with me a moment in thus expressing myself!), whosoever He is, of what God soever He is the Son, of what substance soever He is man and God, of what faith soever He is the teacher, of what reward soever He is the Promiser, did, while He lived on earth, Himself declare what He was, what He had been, what the Father’s will was which He was administering, what the duty of man was which He was prescribing; (and this declaration He made,) either openly to the people, or privately to His disciples, of whom He had chosen the twelve chief ones to be at His side, Mark 4:34 and whom He destined to be the teachers of the nations. Accordingly, after one of these had been struck off, He commanded the eleven others, on His departure to the Father, to “go and teach all nations, who were to be baptized into the Father, and into the Son, and into the Holy Ghost.” Matthew 28:19 Immediately, therefore, so did the apostles, whom this designation indicates as “the sent.” Having, on the authority of a prophecy, which occurs in a psalm of David, chosen Matthias by lot as the twelfth, into the place of Judas, they obtained the promised power of the Holy Ghost for the gift of miracles and of utterance; and after first bearing witness to the faith in Jesus Christ throughout Judæa, and founding churches (there), they next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations. They then in like manner founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church, (founded) by the apostles, from which they all (spring). In this way all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all proved to be one, in (unbroken) unity, by their peaceful communion, and title of brotherhood, and bond of hospitality,—privileges which no other rule directs than the one tradition of the selfsame mystery.
(Interesting quote “derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine” speaks of authority of Tradition)
Chapter 21. All Doctrine True Which Comes Through the Church from the Apostles, Who Were Taught by God Through Christ. All Opinion Which Has No Such Divine Origin and Apostolic Tradition to Show, is Ipso Facto False.
From this, therefore, do we draw up our rule. Since the Lord Jesus Christ sent the apostles to preach, (our rule is) that no others ought to be received as preachers than those whom Christ appointed; for “no man knows the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him.” Matthew 11:27 Nor does the Son seem to have revealed Him to any other than the apostles, whom He sent forth to preach—that, of course, which He revealed to them. Now, what that was which they preached—in other words, what it was which Christ revealed to them—can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves, both vivâ voce, as the phrase is, and subsequently by their epistles. If, then, these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches—those moulds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the (said) churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savours of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso factoproceed from falsehood. We hold communion with the apostolic churches because our doctrine is in no respect different from theirs. This is our witness of truth.
(Speaks of TWO authoritative modes Oral and Written and the Authority of Tradition)
In chap 22: Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called “the rock on which the church should be built,” who also obtained “the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” with the power of “loosing and binding in heaven and on earth?”
(Peter’s primacy and authority)
In Chap 23:
But the fact is, having been converted from a persecutor to a preacher, he is introduced as one of the brethren to brethren, by brethren—to them, indeed, by men who had put on faith from the apostles’ hands. Afterwards, as he himself narrates, he “went up to Jerusalem for the purpose of seeing Peter,” Galatians 1:18 because of his office, no doubt, and by right of a common belief and preaching. Now they certainly would not have been surprised at his having become a preacher instead of a persecutor, if his preaching were of something contrary; nor, moreover, would they have “glorified the Lord,” Galatians 1:24 because Paul had presented himself as an adversary to Him. They accordingly even gave him “the right hand of fellowship,” Galatians 2:9 as a sign of their agreement with him, and arranged amongst themselves a distribution of office, not a diversity of gospel, so that they should severally preach not a different gospel, but (the same), to different persons, Peter to the circumcision, Paul to the Gentiles. Forasmuch, then, as Peter was rebuked because, after he had lived with the Gentiles, he proceeded to separate himself from their company out of respect for persons, the fault surely was one of conversation, not of preaching. For it does not appear from this, that any other God than the Creator, or any other Christ than (the son) of Mary, or any other hope than the resurrection, was (by him) announced.
Chap 26: Although, even supposing that among intimate friends, so to speak, they did hold certain discussions, yet it is incredible that these could have been such as to bring in some other rule of faith, differing from and contrary to that which they were proclaiming through the Catholic churches,—as if they spoke of one God in the Church, (and) another at home, and described one substance of Christ, publicly, (and) another secretly, and announced one hope of the resurrection before all men, (and) another before the few; although they themselves, in their epistles, besought men that they would all speak one and the same thing, and that there should be no divisions and dissensions in the church,
Chapter 28. The One Tradition of the Faith, Which is Substantially Alike in the Churches Everywhere, a Good Proof that the Transmission Has Been True and Honest in the Main.
Grant, then, that all have erred; that the apostle was mistaken in giving his testimony; that the Holy Ghost had no such respect to any one (church) as to lead it into truth, although sent with this view by Christ, John 14:26 and for this asked of the Father that He might be the teacher of truth; John 15:26 grant, also, that He, the Steward of God, the Vicar of Christ, neglected His office, permitting the churches for a time to understand differently, (and) to believe differently, what He Himself was preaching by the apostles,—is it likely that so many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one and the same faith? No casualty distributed among many men issues in one and the same result. Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. Can any one, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition?
(One more time: Can any one, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition?
In chap 30:
Where was Marcion then, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus then, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago,—in the reign of Antoninus for the most part,—and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled. Marcion, indeed, [went] with the two hundred sesterces which he had brought into the church, and, when banished at last to a permanent excommunication, they scattered abroad the poisons of their doctrines.
(He speaks of The Catholic Church and the bishop of Rome (Pope) Eleutherus)
Chapter 32. None of the Heretics Claim Succession from the Apostles. New Churches Still Apostolic, Because Their Faith is that Which the Apostles Taught and Handed Down. The Heretics Challenged to Show Any Apostolic Credentials.
But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,—a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind. For after their blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them (to attempt)? But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner. To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith.
(He speaks of Apostolic succession and Papal succession as being proof of the True Church. Do you have bishops? Can you trace them back to the apostles? Catholics can)
Again: as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter.
In Chap 36:
How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s! where Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile! See what she has learned, what taught, what fellowship has had with even (our) churches in Africa! One Lord God does she acknowledge, the Creator of the universe, and Christ Jesus (born) of the Virgin Mary, the Son of God the Creator; and the Resurrection of the flesh; the law and the prophets she unites in one volume with the writings of evangelists and apostles, from which she drinks in her faith. This she seals with the water (of baptism), arrays with the Holy Ghost, feeds with the Eucharist, cheers with martyrdom, and against such a discipline thus (maintained) she admits no gainsayer. This is the discipline which I no longer say foretold that heresies should come, but from which they proceeded
(“Feeds with The Eucharist”)
John,
Please find two links below that deal with Webster’s comments. 1st is Ray’s rebuttals to Webster and the second is Armstrong.
http://www.catholic-convert.com/Default.aspx?tabid=118
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ31.HTM#I.%20Protestant%20Historians%20on%20Church%20Fathers‘%20View
I was an protestant evangelical Christian for most of my life. I have a very close personal relationship with out Lord. I was involved with street evangelism I learned rom “The Way of The Master” and have learned many truths from my church. Still, I wondered how come there are so many churches claiming the Bible is our only source of Christianity. Why are there such vast diferences of doctrines? So many pastors spoke of recapturing the early church. I never realized there was so much written history from the early church fathers. I made a decision to learn for myself. It did not take long before I realized the Church Christ established is indeed the Catholic Church. Remember, I was brought up in fundlementalist environment which is against the teachings of the Catholic Church. I always felt it was necessary to evangelize the poor lost catholics. Everything I learned about the Catholic Church was from Protestants. Bottom line for all my christian brothers and sisters is to read some books on the catholic church BY the catholic church. It’s an amazing, loving, logical and scriptually based Church.