**Calvinator;2813236]**Okay…I don’t know anyone that believes that the scriptures must be read in order to be justified. Ani Lbi started a thread with a similar thesis a while back and it went nowhere because nobody believes such a thing.
As you know, I reject much of what you accept as apostolic tradition. Part of my reasoning is simply because quite a bit what your church teaches has no foundation in the early church. The assumption is the clearest example of this as there is no evidence for such a belief existing until several centuries after the apostles.
Welll, I know you don’t agree with the Catholic church, do you accept any Christian councils?
Councils say up to at least the 6th century?
I also see that you want to lead me into the assumption of Mary issue which is found in Tradition and based upon who Mary is in the Bible.
But again in all due deference, if you could you would provide evidence for the early church being Calvinistic in its theology, not just extracting the scriptural interpretation or theolgical novums not heard until the 16th century, but the evidence in the early Christian church post Apostolic period up to the 6th century.
Again, without coming off as rude, if I were doing a report on the evidence for Calvinism or Protestantism in the early church which would encompass a time-line, let’s say just up to the 6th century, I couldn’t find much evidence for it’s beliefs, save the Trinity and perhaps, that there were sacraments (2), and padeo baptism, hypostatic union, (yet, Calvinists disagree with the nature of Baptism, so that also doesn’t really get us to the solution either).
I have a good friend who is a Reformed Christian Protestant Pastor, a graduate of Westminster Seminary a devout Calvinist (Dutch Reformed). We had lunch a few days ago (we are friends, and I respect his beliefs, he respects mine, yet we both are firm in those beliefs respectfully. He has told me of the splits within the Reformed
churches as his had one just a few years ago. They didn’t even split for doctrinal reasons, it was over a person claiming his pastoral practices were to authoritarian. Point being there is no objective means by which his church is held together and his church is acting according to the nature of sola scriptura, which is split apart if we don’t agree.
Again, the ancient Christian church didn’t have those types of splits.
That some early church fathers speak of the authority of scripture, yes they do but NOT the Bible alone as the only authority. They also speak of sacred Tradition too and the authority of the Catholic Magisterium, the Pope, purgatory, communion of saints, sacraments (you accept two most likely?) baptismal regeneration, Apostolic succession, theosis, Marian doctrines.
And of course then there is the canon issue, being it wasn’t formed until the fourth century yet authoritatively recognized by the Catholic church (382 AD council of Rome) and therefore on that subject, there are Christian councils starting in Acts 15 and progressing into the early Christian church history.
Some of them, being you are a Calvinist, you may agree with (council of Orange 529, Chalcedon 451,Nicea 325 AD); these “councils” are made up of Catholic Bishops (not Calvinists, not Protestants, not Baptist’s) and yet all these councils proclaim doctrines, some dogma, and moreover, they rebutt the heretical beliefs, arianism, donatism, nestorianism, pelagianism, semi-pelagianism, monophysitism, collrydianism and even Helvidius who Jerome refuted.
I’m not saying this to try to be mean or a bully or in arrogance, no, not at all.
These are historical truths. Perhaps you see it otherwise, but these truths give substantive evidence for the Catholic faith.
I realize what you guys believe and you stated it pretty well, but some of your fellow catholic posters go a bit to far. Do me a favor, from here on out, take the time to read how some of the catholic apologists on this forum treat scripture and see if you agree with it or not. I’ll send you a pm in a few weeks and see if you agree with me.
Perhaps you could be more specific in what you mean by “catholic posters go a bit to far?” How?
As I said earlier, I don’t know anyone that believes salvation comes from reading the bible.
Actually, I would disagree and say that it is theoretically possible for a person to read the Bible and come to a knowledge of Jesus Christ and that it I’m sure has happened. That person would definitely need instruction afterward (and baptism), but it is theoretically possible as all things are possible with God as He is sovereign.
Where we part company is on the issue of where the gospel is to be found and what exactly that gospel is.
True, but I think history provides the evidence of which church was the Christian church post Apostolic period and which others came much later in history.