Redstone said:

---

Not weird in the slightest. Affection is well established in Catholic tradition, especially in my favorite, Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich visions.

If you don't respect the archeological evidence (residences of Anatolia and Jerusalem) some sources in Emmerich, and Syriac fragments from the 2nd Century, and a long tradition of the assumption, and the lack of writings about it, which speaks loudly (especially given that Gnostics also had this belief), and the Pseudo-Melito, an influential text of the Latin Church….

That's fine. But let's not pretend like the case isn't extremely strong the Assumption was assumed, so to speak.

---

It's quite weird and by no means definitive of your claim given the full quote itself.

Even then, we are still in the late 4th century at best.

The Banned said:

---

So man can't infallibly determine anything. So you can't know for sure that your current denomination of choice is right? And you can't infallibly know the Catholic Church is right? The scriptures you will cite will have opposing interpretations. We can't infallibly know which of those interpretations are correct? We're just left to guess?

---

I don't think I said that?

Scripture is the only infallible source and Word of God. It provides infallible truths for us.

There was a whole debate in another thread about Luther's Bondage of the Will, and while I don't want to bring it up, the basic argument between Luther and Erasmus (at the Pope's behest) was around the perspicuity of Scripture.

Erasmus' basic argument was the Scriptures were too hard to read and so a church was needed to explain it.

Luther's basic argument was that much of Scripture was understandable (light) and that the "dark" or tough passages should be read based on the understanding of the light. Or simply "Scripture interprets Scriptures." This doesn't mean that the Church Fathers shouldn't be consulted, but that they, nor a Pope should be considered infallible or on the level of Scriptures.
------

Now does this mean that there's a single church that 100% gets it right? Given we only know what God has revealed to us, I suspect no church has it 100% correct...but I of course believe that the Lutherans, through the reforming of the Western Church, put the church back on track as much as possible over the errors of churches such as Rome.

Faithful Ag said:

---

https://www.youtube.com/live/Bq1z44GVBcA?feature=shared


Gavin Ortlund discussing Marian Dogmas on Reason & Theology.

---

I've probably watched this at one point, but I'm not going to rewatch a 90 minute video. Is there a specific point you are trying to make?

You posted a video of Gavin Ortlund giving his opinion on the Marian Dogmas. I posted a much more in depth video of Gavin Ortlund discussing the Marian Dogmas with Catholic scholars. The back and forth was excellent and I think offers a good dialog from differing perspectives

AgLiving06 said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

Jesus promised he would send the Holy Spirit to guide the CHURCH. The church is comprised of fallible men. In the same way the Holy Spirit guided the men leading the church who wrote Scriptures (Paul, Luke, Matthew, etc.) and protected them from error (infallibility), the Holy Spirit guided the men leading the same church to collect, discern, and recognize which of these writings would be included in the Bible and protected them from error in that process (infallibility).

---

If you just stopped at the bolded, we'd be in complete agreement.

But you have to try and sneak in that somehow, man can infallibly discern anything. We can't. There is only one infallible source and it's Scripture. Man is full corrupted by sin and won't be able to truly discern until the next lifetime.

---

I am not trying to "sneak the second part in". What you fail to recognize is the fact that both are indeed required. In order to know you have the complete and infallible Scriptures you must first have the infallible/Inspired writing of the scriptures AND second the infallible/Inspired recognition of the scriptures.

We have a disagreement on the second part and you are unable to adequately address the issue in any satisfactory way whatsoever. You have stated that the books were disputed for more than 1,000 years but you are unable to tell us who resolved the dispute, or when the dispute was resolved, or by what authority they held to resolve the dispute.

Faithful Ag said:

---

You posted a video of Gavin Ortlund giving his opinion on the Marian Dogmas. I posted a much more in depth video of Gavin Ortlund discussing the Marian Dogmas with Catholic scholars. The back and forth was excellent and I think offers a good dialog from differing perspectives

---

I mean...He's made multiple follow up videos (such as the one I posted) that provide more in depth.

I also posted the video at a time stamp for a specific response to Redstone.

I did have it on in the background and it was good to hear Lofton essentially acknowledge that even something like the perpetual of the virgin took centuries to develop (and they seem to agree that's the earliest), but that at the end it doesn't really matter because the magisterium can de facto decide something, even if it's not part of the hierarchy of truth (believe that was the language he used).

This becomes important to note that we are leaving the world of "handed down from the apostles" to an accretion that may have developed 3,4,5+ centuries later.

Faithful Ag said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

Jesus promised he would send the Holy Spirit to guide the CHURCH. The church is comprised of fallible men. In the same way the Holy Spirit guided the men leading the church who wrote Scriptures (Paul, Luke, Matthew, etc.) and protected them from error (infallibility), the Holy Spirit guided the men leading the same church to collect, discern, and recognize which of these writings would be included in the Bible and protected them from error in that process (infallibility).

---

If you just stopped at the bolded, we'd be in complete agreement.

But you have to try and sneak in that somehow, man can infallibly discern anything. We can't. There is only one infallible source and it's Scripture. Man is full corrupted by sin and won't be able to truly discern until the next lifetime.

---

I am not trying to "sneak the second part in". What you fail to recognize is the fact that both are indeed required. In order to know you have the complete and infallible Scriptures you must first have the infallible/Inspired writing of the scriptures AND second the infallible/Inspired recognition of the scriptures.

We have a disagreement on the second part and you are unable to adequately address the issue in any satisfactory way whatsoever. You have stated that the books were disputed for more than 1,000 years but you are unable to tell us who resolved the dispute, or when the dispute was resolved, or by what authority they held to resolve the dispute.

---

And I of course disagree with your assertion. I have adequately addressed the issue, but just as in the video you shared, we start with different prepositions.

You start with a claim that an infallible church is necessary (which you've never actually defended).

I assert that we have no reason to believe that the church must be infallible when the Holy Spirit was given that task.

So I'll assert again that only the Holy Spirit needs to be active in the transmitting and protecting of the Scriptures and that the Church is the passive recipient of the Scriptures. I'm not sure I claimed any books "were disputed for more than 1,000 years" but that there was dispute over books is the fault of man, not of God. That it took time for the church to recognize the true Word of God, in my mind, points to the fallibility of man, not to some grand decision or infallible decision by man.

Redstone said:

---

Regarding the "word of God" -

I've stated the Logos Incarnate is the literal Word of God. Like Muslims view the Koran - from God's speech to our ears.

The Bible is a holy product of the Apostolic Church, which came first, codified after 3 centuries of intense debate.

It is the word of God - holy texts to be read and studied in such a context. To us from men as Christ used His followers in His missions.

It is NOT like Muslims view the Koran.

---

And this is a great example of the problems with Roman Catholicism.

In the end, everything, including Scripture is subject to the true authority, which is Rome itself.

But even your statement "To us from men as Christ used his followers" can't possibly be true.

Christ is God. When He spoke, it was God speaking. It was not subject or the product of anything else, but God. That the Second Person of the Trinity was in human form when the words were spoken does not make it any less than the very spoken Word of God.

Likewise, the Scriptures are the Word of God delivered to us through the Holy Spirit. That man was used to write it down, like with Jesus, does not change that we are hearing the very Word of God.

That you want to reduce the Scriptures to the "product of the church" is to say that either the Scriptures themselves are not the true Word of God, or that God is a subject or product of the Church.

Neither is a good solution.

The RCC's position on authority, as espoused by Redstone and others on here, is also circular.

When asked from whence the RCC gets its authority, they reply "Scripture", and point to Matthew 16:18 and other similar verses.

But when asked from whence the Scriptures get their authority, they say "the Church".

That circularity leaves them with no outside source of authority for either. Essentially, the Church's basis for authority, including its own, is simply "Because we said so."

Thanks for the discussion, and I will have more time later. Briefly, regarding authority:

For the Apostolic (Catholic - Orthodox, and both "arguments" are formidable, which is why I use Apostolic) …..

Authority is directly from Christ to the Apostles and their successors, guided and protected by the Holy Spirit. God can use evil decisions for good - as when Joseph was sold to slavery …. and he can write with crooked lines, as when St. Peter denied Him and then an intense repentance.

There is no circular argument on authority, only a supernatural one:

The deposit of faith was given by Christ to specific people and is then guarded by the Spirit.

When we have atrocious shepherds, as now infests the Curia, this deposit endures.
Same for the Orthodox, who have been busy excommunicating each other recently (Greek - Russian divisions)

Jabin said:

---

The RCC's position on authority, as espoused by Redstone and others on here, is also circular.

When asked from whence the RCC gets its authority, they reply "Scripture", and point to Matthew 16:18 and other similar verses.

But when asked from whence the Scriptures get their authority, they say "the Church".

That circularity leaves them with no outside source of authority for either. Essentially, the Church's basis for authority, including its own, is simply "Because we said so."

---

It is and I started to type that, but I actually suspect that most RCC apologists would not take the same position as Redstone because it is circular and that's really not a defensible position.

I ended up just pointing out that at the end of the day, everything with Rome comes down to authority. Redstone just seems to take it a bit further and subjects even God's Word to the Church, although to be perfectly honest, I'm not entirely sure he would say the Scriptures are truly Gods word.

Of course it's "God's word" - just not directly. We don't have the Koran. Christ is the literal and direct word of God.

The Bible is a product. It took 3 centuries to codify and the debates were intense, personal, prayerful.

The Holy Spirit guarded and protected, as He does today despite our truly awful Curia cabal.

So, were St. Peter, St. John, St. Mary, St. John the Baptist, St. Joseph, St. James …. set apart or not, performing essential and unique functions for the faith, greater than you or I by responsibility and holiness?

If so, this principle of hierarchy and delegated responsibility is Christian. AND it's also true, as Dante said, that the floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.

Redstone said:

---

Of course it's "God's word" - just not directly. We don't have the Koran. Christ is the literal and direct word of God.

The Bible is a product. It took 3 centuries to codify and the debates were intense, personal, prayerful.

The Holy Spirit guarded and protected, as He does today despite our truly awful Curia cabal.

---

So it's God's word only in the sense that "the church" declared it so.

So you've subjected God to the church. I'm not sure how you don't see that as problematic?

It also completely ignores that the OT was written down over centuries and never had or needed an infallible church to produce it. God alone continuously corrected the fallible and sinful people.

I think you've not caught the authority correctly. The Church gets its authority from Christ, not the scriptures. The scriptures have authority through their use in the Church, being recognized as scripture.

I think a lot of this gets bogged down in useless arguments though, like "what council ratified the canon?" It is a bad question with an unhelpful answer. It raises all kinds of other confusion, like - what scriptures did churches use before or after / apart from those councils? Were they deficient? And the answer of course is no.

Canon just means standard. In some sense, canons don't exist without synodical expression - kind of like saying a law doesn't exist until the legislative body enacts it. In another sense, canons are realities in daily life. I'm just describing the difference between de facto and de jure.

So there was a de facto canon in every church, at every time, in every community. That canon was whatever set of scriptures that particular community recognized as authoritative and used as scripture - for teaching, preaching, theological support, and so on. It simply was. Different communities in different places inherited different canons from their different Judaisms which themselves had different canons. The most famous example of this is the difference in scripture between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, but there were many more. This is why the OT scriptures vary to some extent between different churches to this day.

When two communities encountered each other part of what enabled them to recognize each other as belonging to the same Faith was what scriptures they used. When churches encountered a group that used other scriptures, these either were acceptable and comported with the deposit of faith that group had received from the Apostles, or they were unacceptable and the new group was not recognized as Christian, not in communion. But the referent was the deposit of faith, which included but was not limited to the scriptures in use in their community. This is obvious as a matter of necessity to produce the relatively homogenous canon of scripture we have today across the world.

It also matches with what we see in the NT. St Paul doesn't say because we have one set of scriptures we are one body, but because there is one loaf and because we all partake of it. And that body has one animating Spirit. That Spirit enables the body to test and accept or reject writings it encounters, which is a process that happened in time and that we can see after the fact unfolding in history.

Every church had and has the canon of scripture it needs for salvation, and this is true even though it is a historical fact that churches have had different canons of scripture at different times and places in history.

Quote:

---

So it's God's word only in the sense that "the church" declared it so.

---

Correct. In the 2 newadvent urls I posted, as well as the councils also posted.

Quote:

---

So you've subjected God to the church.

---

No. God instituted the Apostolic Church, entrusted it to St. Peter and St. John and their successors as guided by the Holy Spirit (who was active as the potential rupture was healed via St. James in Jerusalem)

Quote:

---

It also completely ignores that the OT was written down over centuries and never had or needed an infallible church to produce it.

---

Nope. That's been detailed above. I again ask you the Enoch question, which has been so ignored.

Quote:

---

God alone continuously corrected the fallible and sinful people.

---

Agree. We all need the Sacraments, first offered by St. Peter and St. John during the Pascal feast, 33 AD.

Quote:

---

Every church had and has the canon of scripture it needs for salvation, and this is true even though it is a historical fact that churches have had different canons of scripture at different times and places in history.

---

Kinda true and kinda not true.

It's kinda true because initially as each body of believers received various books and letters of the NT, by definition they only possessed those portions of the NT that they had received. Each church received the letters and books at different times and sequence.

But it seems that, within a somewhat short period of time, most churches had received most books. Long before the first Church council, most of the local churches were using a set of books and letters that were 90-95% identical.

Genuine question because I really don't know: where there any major disputes between the various churches about books that should belong in the canon that had a significant impact on church doctrine? I know that there was dispute over Revelation, Hebrews, and one or two other "minor" books (II and III John, maybe?), but not regarding any of the Gospels, the Pauline letters, or Peter's writings. Or am I wrong on that?

Here's a really nice website that details various ancient lists.

https://biblecanon.org/lists/

Quote:

---

If we can see from history without a doubt that for 4+ centuries (and really much longer than that) churches had variance in their canon, then the canon itself cannot be the foundation of the faith.

---

What was the foundation of their faith, then?

It was not the canon that was the foundation, but the scriptures were. Each church relied upon the scriptures that they had as their foundation and did not need any church or church council to tell them that it was appropriate.

When the churches disagreed with each other, or when individuals within a church disagreed, to where did they turn for guidance? The scriptures. Yes, there may have been elders appointed in each church, but they were appointed pursuant to the teachings of scripture and their authority was limited to (or should have been limited to) what was granted in scriptures.

We're not really talking about canon, but really about authority. Where does the ultimate authority rest? Is the Church supreme, above even the Scriptures, as Redstone argues, or are the scriptures supreme?

The foundation of their faith was the apostolic teaching. That's what writers of that era witness to - St Irenaeus most clearly perhaps. The scriptures are icons of that teaching, they witness to the teaching. That teaching didn't come in a vacuum - there was fertile ground in second temple Judaism, that's why St Paul went to the synagogues first. But many early Christians were from completely pagan backgrounds. They held to the faith they were taught, and that faith included scriptures. It certainly wasn't limited to them - it also included hymns, rituals, and teaching. That's what the NT witnesses - "they continued steadfastly in the teaching of the apostles, and in the Communion in the breaking of the bread, and in the prayers" or in another place "stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, whether by word, or by letter from us."

You're busy arguing against some vague church council telling them what is appropriate - I'm not making that argument. Each church, with its bishop, is the Church in entirety and without deficiency. These men were entrusted with the public teaching of the Church, the teaching of the Apostles, to guard and maintain. "The things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be competent to teach others also."

Where they turned to for guidance was not only the scriptures, but also the apostolic teaching. They aren't in opposition, one contains the other. Just as the gospels are the crown jewel of the scriptures, the scriptures are the crown jewel of the apostolic teaching. "Lex orandi lex credendi" is real - the prayers and hymns and rituals of the church are every bit as much a witness to the apostolic teaching and continuity of faith as the scriptures.

If you want to talk about authority granted in scriptures, the NT itself doesn't tell the laity to submit to the scriptures, but to their elders. And to the teaching of the apostles explicitly outside of written instruction. And it also clearly outlines clerical roles and gives teaching for ecclesiastical structure and discipline but is silent on the question of the canon.

The ultimate authority rests in Christ. He alone is our Pastor, Teacher, and Priest. His Spirit animates and makes alive the Body which is the Church, and He is active in that role every day, at all times. Every liturgy we confess "Christ is in our midst, He is and ever shall be."

The scriptures are an icon of Christ, but they are not supreme. And, as the Church itself is the Body of Christ with Christ as the Head, there is nothing over it. How could we subordinate Christ to scriptures which teach of Him? Doesn't He say "You diligently search the Scriptures because you think to have eternal life in them, and these are they bearing witness concerning Me, yet you are not willing to come to Me, that you may have life." I'm not pointing those words to you, but showing that such a thing is absolutely possible to do.

Faithful Ag said:

---

Lots to chime in on here ~

AgLiving06 said:

---

It's absolutely true and germane to the discussion.

There is a recognition of tiers among all kinds of groups understand and acknowledge that though books may be "part of the canon," that does not make them "equal."

---

This is where is gets very dicey for your position. You attempt to nuance and qualify your position as if it was the clear, historical position of Christians and that the "disputed books" are sort of scripture but when push comes to shove you side with the position of not equal to Scripture so NOT SCRIPTURE.

Of course you admit the books were in the Bible for more than 1,000 years but they were not actually IN the Bible. They were just printed in the Bible but everyone just knew they were not Scripture because Jerome used the word "apocrypha" to describe them before he translated them and included them with the real Scriptures in the same Bible.

--------------------

AgLiving06 said:

---

Redstone said:

---

Seriously, why are you avoiding this ESSENTIAL meta question?

WHO decided Revelation was in and Enoch out, and WHEN? What was the process?

---

"essential meta question." Who decided it? God did! Why is that complicated. The Holy Spirit guides and protects the Church.

---

Your answer here begs the question of HOW and WHEN did GOD decide Revelation was in and Enoch out? What was the process and how do WE KNOW was GOD decided? Please be specific with this answer.

AgLiving06 said:

---

That Rome tries to take authority from God and give it to man is always something that is just baffling to me. Would you really want man acting our own? What a terrifying thought.

---

This is where your preconceived animosity toward Rome interferes with your ability to be objective, and is why you are unable to provide a direct, logical, coherent response to what are simple, straightforward questions.

Furthermore, you fail to see that it is YOUR position (not the Catholic or Orthodox) that places YOU in the terrifying position of relying on the actions of man acting on their own.

AgLiving06 said:

---

And before you try to claim that's what you mean, you don't get it both ways. Either man and these councils acted actively of their own free will, or it is God who's will was active. It can't be both. I'll always default to God's will.

---

Jesus promised he would send the Holy Spirit to guide the CHURCH. The church is comprised of fallible men. In the same way the Holy Spirit guided the men leading the church who wrote Scriptures (Paul, Luke, Matthew, etc.) and protected them from error (infallibility), the Holy Spirit guided the men leading the same church to collect, discern, and recognize which of these writings would be included in the Bible and protected them from error in that process (infallibility).

----------------------------

AgLiving06 said:

---

Redstone said:

---

Yes, the founder via St. Peter and St. John the leader of His ordained priests at the Pascal celebration, the Mass, before His holy passion did exist before the Church.

---

So your claim is that the Church existed before Jesus established the church? It's a bold claim, but I guess it's the hole you dig when you need an authoritative church to exist.

---

Yet another example of your twisting the meaning of what others are saying. Jesus established his NT Church ON Peter and the Apostles and through them the NT Church came to be. It was the precise reason Jesus chose them to follow him. Jesus breathed on them commanding them to receive the Holy Spirit. So yes, Peter and the Apostles did exist before the NT Church was born so to speak.

AgLiving06 said:

---

Simply put, the Word of God existed before the Church. The Scriptures are the Word of God guided and protected by the Holy Spirit. So the Word of God existed prior to the Church. That the accidental form came into existence later does not change that.

---

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.

Yes, the Scriptures are the Word of God. However, the Scriptures are not the complete and exhaustive Word of God. The issue I have with your position is that you conflate the two as if ONLY the Scriptures are the Word of God and nothing else or nothing more. You are confining the Word of God to the Scriptures alone. You are in error by doing so.

---------------------------

AgLiving06 said:

---

Because it causes significant issues for you and Redstone. Restone's claim is that "the Church established the canon in an active role with councils and what not.

---

This is not what Redstone has claimed. You are putting words into Redstone's mouth. You have twisted his words to mean something slightly different in an attempt to make a point. Typical straw-man.

Redstone has made the case that in the same way God guided and protected the process of writing Scripture, God also guided and protected the process of collecting and recognizing Scripture. All of this from beginning to end was done THROUGH the Church, not by individual men.

AgLiving06 said:

---

However, history shows that the vast majority of the canon did not require councils or anything of that nature. So then we see that there is a historical understanding, that differs within groups, that some books took longer to be accepted and their acceptance comes with a "second tier status."

---

Are you saying that some of the cannon required councils or something similar? Again, WHO decides/decided? Why isn't Enoch considered Scripture? It was treated as Scripture by many in the early days, and was referenced by Jesus himself THE WORD. How is it that Enoch can be excluded from the canon using your "historical" view?

------------------

AgLiving06 said:

---

Yes, we agree that Jesus Christ is the Word. Kind of the point of John 1.

But to claim that the Scriptures are not the Word of God, and were not seen as such in the early church is just nonsense.

---

NOBODY on this board, Catholic or Protestant, has claimed, said or implied that the Scriptures are NOT the Word of God.

The debate we are having is the disagreement on WHAT is Scripture. The Protestant position is the most restrictive and rejects books currently and historically held as Scripture by both Catholics and Orthodox going back more than 1,500 years. The support offered for rejecting these books is tenuous at best, and your need to avoid the necessary implications of your position (such Enoch, Revelation, etc.) is obvious.

---

Excellent response.

Quote:

---

Correct. In the 2 newadvent urls I posted, as well as the councils also posted.

---

As said repeated, these are not a defense of anything.

Quote:

---

No. God instituted the Apostolic Church, entrusted it to St. Peter and St. John and their successors as guided by the Holy Spirit (who was active as the potential rupture was healed via St. James in Jerusalem)

---

But it's problematic.

If you claim Rome actively produced the Scriptures, you've subjected God to the Church.
If you claim Rome passively received the Scriptures, you've now agreed with the Protestant position.

Btw, to no surprise, In a follow up to the link that FaithfulAg posted, the RCC apologists (William Albrecht specifically) agree they "did not create the biblical canon.

Quote:

---

Nope. That's been detailed above. I again ask you the Enoch question, which has been so ignored.

---

You haven't said much of anything above. Your default argument is the "apostolic church declared it so it is so."

That's not a defense, but a statement.

What you need to prove is that, even though we have zero evidence that God ever required or needed the church you describe. So no you haven't detailed a single reason why the Church that Jesus created needs an infallible church.

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Redstone said:

---

The concept and reality is similar, abstractly, to annulment: a declaration of what exists.

The dogmas of St. Mary have been taught for 2,000 years by Apostolic, East and West.
….since proclaimed by the First Vatican Council in 1870, invoked once in defining a dogma ex cathedra that all Catholics must believe.

Pope Pius XII declared that all Catholics (including us, today) must accept "that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory."

This is the fourth of the Marian dogmas of the Church. Codified after 2,000 years - I suppose we tend to "think" in centuries, which is healthy.

Weaponized ambiguity, including by many Catholics, is lamentable. I hope our leaders return to clarity.

---

The "dogmas of Mary" were absolutely not taught for 2,000 years. I believe our resident Orthodox would also disagree with that assertion.

Those claims also were almost certainly completely foreign to the earliest church fathers, and instead took centuries to develop.

For example, in this video, Gavin Ortlund looks at Roman Catholic Scholars to see what they say (starting at 9 minutes or so).



So your claim, while I think is sincere on your part, doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

---

This guy has so many holes in his arguments and his debates with Catholics fall short. Gavin uses the same poor arguments as others do, he just speaks quietly. This is often the problem with these videos, people watch them and if it supports their own biases, they don't bother to fact check them at all. This goes to both Protestant and Catholics apologists. Its on the listeners to do their homework.

---

You must not be caught up on the thread yet. Even the RCC apologists concede that Gavin is probably correct about the timing of when claims of Mary start to come up.

Gavin has flaws, and says some things I disagree with, but as he points out in the video, it's not him speaking but RCC scholars.

Quote:

---

Where they turned to for guidance was not only the scriptures, but also the apostolic teaching.

---

After the first generation who knew the apostles personally, wouldn't the only source for the apostolic teaching be the scriptures?

You and I also differ on one critical point. You refer to the scriptures as merely an "icon" of Christ. I and probably most devout Protestants view the Scriptures as a manifestation of Christ. They are one and the same.

Thus, when elders are to submit to Christ, they are to submit to Scripture. If not that, to what standard or authority are the elders held? To what standard are the bishops held? To what standard is the entire church hierarchy held?

AgLiving06 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Redstone said:

---

The concept and reality is similar, abstractly, to annulment: a declaration of what exists.

The dogmas of St. Mary have been taught for 2,000 years by Apostolic, East and West.
….since proclaimed by the First Vatican Council in 1870, invoked once in defining a dogma ex cathedra that all Catholics must believe.

Pope Pius XII declared that all Catholics (including us, today) must accept "that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory."

This is the fourth of the Marian dogmas of the Church. Codified after 2,000 years - I suppose we tend to "think" in centuries, which is healthy.

Weaponized ambiguity, including by many Catholics, is lamentable. I hope our leaders return to clarity.

---

The "dogmas of Mary" were absolutely not taught for 2,000 years. I believe our resident Orthodox would also disagree with that assertion.

Those claims also were almost certainly completely foreign to the earliest church fathers, and instead took centuries to develop.

For example, in this video, Gavin Ortlund looks at Roman Catholic Scholars to see what they say (starting at 9 minutes or so).



So your claim, while I think is sincere on your part, doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

---

This guy has so many holes in his arguments and his debates with Catholics fall short. Gavin uses the same poor arguments as others do, he just speaks quietly. This is often the problem with these videos, people watch them and if it supports their own biases, they don't bother to fact check them at all. This goes to both Protestant and Catholics apologists. Its on the listeners to do their homework.

---

You must not be caught up on the thread yet. Even the RCC apologists concede that Gavin is probably correct about the timing of when claims of Mary start to come up.

Gavin has flaws, and says some things I disagree with, but as he points out in the video, it's not him speaking but RCC scholars.

---

I missed this part, and I don't want to watch an hour long video. When does he say the Marian claims started and which Catholic rubber stamped it?

No, because the scriptures aren't the complete apostolic teaching. Not only do they not claim to be, they are explicitly said not to be. The whole idea is unworkable, as it also assumes most of the apostles taught nothing as we don't have their writings, or that after the first generation the churches they founded were without full guidance. Worse it suggests that different churches with different scriptures in use - which we know was the case for certain - had a different teaching from different apostles, creating a confusion and inconsistently going right back to Christ, in direct contradiction to the scriptural witness of unity, one Lord one Faith one baptism and one loaf.

As St Paul writes, "The things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be competent to teach others also." This is the source of apostolic tradition - the public teaching and practice of the church. This is the exact same claim made by the church fathers for centuries, for example by st Irenaeus quoted earlier. You can go encounter the apostolic teaching today in any Orthodox Church's services, prayer books, hymnody, and absolutely the scriptures. Apostolic teaching is what guided the use of which writings were to be used as scripture. It came first, as we know from scripture and history.

The scriptures are not the same as Christ. I don't know what you mean by manifestation, but this sounds either the same to me (icon means image) or wildly wrong. Christ is not the scriptures. They witness to Him, they teach about Him, they reveal Him but they are not Him. Thats not in the scriptures. He's a person, not a collection of words.

What you're saying isn't in the scriptures. It says submit to elders. The elders are to hold fast to the apostolic teaching - that is the criterion. As St Vincent of Lerins said the criterion is what has been believed "everywhere, always, by all."

Where do we today get those apostolic teachings if not from the Scriptures?

And Christ is the Scriptures as plainly stated in the first chapter of John. He is not limited to the Scriptures, but the Scriptures are Christ in some profound mystery that we cannot understand.

I already answered this. You can go encounter the apostolic teaching today in any Orthodox Church's services, prayer books, hymnody, and absolutely the scriptures.

The Logos is Christ, not the scriptures. The Word of Yahweh is all over the OT. St John is saying the Word of Yahweh that we see in the OT became Man, and we met Him, and His name was Jesus. He is not saying Jesus is the scriptures. This is a very significant error.

That's what I've always thought. The EO raises the writings of the early church fathers and other church writings to be equivalent to the Scriptures themselves. That's why you guys study their writings as intensely or maybe even more so than the Scriptures themselves.

How do you judge valid writings from invalid? Do the authors have had to know Christ personally? The apostles personally? Why do you give them the same weight as Scripture?

What is the support for your contention that Orthodox Church's services, prayer books, hymnody are apostolic teachings? Which apostle? How do we know that? Why should someone accept them as equal in authority to, say, the books of Matthew, Romans, or 1 Peter?

You also say:

Quote:

---

St John is saying the Word of Yahweh that we see in the OT became Man, and we met Him, and His name was Jesus. He is not saying Jesus is the scriptures.

---

What's your basis for that assertion? If I'm understanding you correctly (which is hard to do on religious matters, interestingly, although you are a clear and concise writer on many other topics), what is the distinction between saying that the Word of Yahweh became man and what I said? Why do you limit John's statement to the OT when he did not, although other NT books were most likely in wide use at the time he wrote his book?

AgLiving06 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Redstone said:

---

The concept and reality is similar, abstractly, to annulment: a declaration of what exists.

The dogmas of St. Mary have been taught for 2,000 years by Apostolic, East and West.
….since proclaimed by the First Vatican Council in 1870, invoked once in defining a dogma ex cathedra that all Catholics must believe.

Pope Pius XII declared that all Catholics (including us, today) must accept "that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory."

This is the fourth of the Marian dogmas of the Church. Codified after 2,000 years - I suppose we tend to "think" in centuries, which is healthy.

Weaponized ambiguity, including by many Catholics, is lamentable. I hope our leaders return to clarity.

---

The "dogmas of Mary" were absolutely not taught for 2,000 years. I believe our resident Orthodox would also disagree with that assertion.

Those claims also were almost certainly completely foreign to the earliest church fathers, and instead took centuries to develop.

For example, in this video, Gavin Ortlund looks at Roman Catholic Scholars to see what they say (starting at 9 minutes or so).



So your claim, while I think is sincere on your part, doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

---

This guy has so many holes in his arguments and his debates with Catholics fall short. Gavin uses the same poor arguments as others do, he just speaks quietly. This is often the problem with these videos, people watch them and if it supports their own biases, they don't bother to fact check them at all. This goes to both Protestant and Catholics apologists. Its on the listeners to do their homework.

---

You must not be caught up on the thread yet. Even the RCC apologists concede that Gavin is probably correct about the timing of when claims of Mary start to come up.

Gavin has flaws, and says some things I disagree with, but as he points out in the video, it's not him speaking but RCC scholars.

---

Yes but they are not agreeing with him that the Church didn't believe it before a certain point. When something in the Church was already a mainstay of belief, they didn't have to formalize it until a large enough group called it into question. This was true about a number of things. If you use this argument, then you could throw doubt on the belief in the Trinity. He's using a bad argument here. We could say the exact same about any protest denominations and there statements of faith that didn't 'formally' exist until much much later.