The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum 'Catholocism and Fundamentalism' by Karl Keating

After debating with some Catholics for quite some time I agreed to read up on the other side of the debate - I think every protestant should read this book by Karl Keating.

The lone Reformed representative whose work is addressed ('Roman Catholocism') is Lorraine Boettner.

But the major concern for me - which is always an area that stumps me - is the writings and beliefs held by the ECF's (early church fathers). I think every reasonable Protestant admits that there was an Early Church established by the Apostles - of course we believe they went astray and fairly early. But in reading statements by the ECF's its hard to get around the seeming possibility that they held some very Catholic perspectives regarding the Lord's Supper (real presence) and even Baptism, Praying for the Dead and Purgatory. What are we to make of this???

Let's be honest, Election was never intended to be a primary doctrine - in reading the Bible we may all agree that is quite evident. It became a predominant teaching when Pelagism appeared on the scene. But aside from Augustine - Grace in a predestrian/electing sense did not seem to be prominent in the early church.

Now don't get me wrong - I'm not looking to convert back to Catholocism. But I do believe it is all of our responsibilities to objectively step outside of our belief systems and look at church history and see the other side of the story - or try to obtain an objective source which is very difficult.

I realize much of Catholic doctrine in exercise became twisted and corrupted but I wonder if that was more a product of the people and not necessarily the validity of the teachings.

I don't think i'll ever buy into the papacy or Mariology but some of the teachings and writings of the ECF's seem to indicate an acknowledgement of many of the beliefs and practices we see today in the Catholic Church.

What do you guys think? - I'd like some feeback especially from those who have done some research into the early church and the origins of doctines.

thanks

ajc

AJC,

I can understand how coming out of a RCC background you are still struggling with such issues, e.g., teachings of the ECF and the claims of the RCC that their doctrines and practices are consistent with them, thus giving them the upper hand. However, to put it simply, most of the RCC's interpretations of the ECF are twisted and made to "fit" their established doctrines/practices. Secondly, and no less important is the fact that even in Paul and Peter's day, there were errors being introduced and even held within the churches they themselves had established. The ECFs are hardly infallible or even close to being infallible. Like any other uninspired writing, they must be brought under the light of Scripture and either accepted or rejected depending upon their conformity to it.

On The Highway main page there is an entire section devoted to apologetic writings against the errors of Rome. You can access it here: Roman Catholicism.

Boettner was definitely not the only apologetic written against the RCC. Many others have writings which can be found, e.g., Berkhouwer's The Conflict with Rome, Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestants Analyze What Divides and Unites Us, John Armstrong, General Editor (Moody Press), The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, by William Webster who btw has a website dedicated to refuting the errors of Rome here: Christian Resources. Mr. Webster also co-authored a 3 volume series, Sola Scriptura, which devotes an entire volume to the writings of the ECF on that doctrine and shows irrefutably that it was held by the majority of them much to the consternation of the RCC and its denial of it. Another contemporary ex-Priest now Protestant apologist is Rchard Bennett, many of whose articles appear on The Highway. His website can be found here: Berean Beacon. And yet another popular Protestant apologist is James White of Alpha & Omega Ministries. Lastly, the writings of the Reformers, Luther, Calvin, Knox, et al, and many of the Puritans taught and preached against the errors of the RCC. Thus there is a plethora of written material by others in addition to Lorraine Boettner out there. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

Pilgrim,

Believe me, my loyalties lie with Reformed. I was never a good Catholic to begin with and am just now learning the ins and outs of Catholic Doctrine - let me tell you your average CAtholic is pretty ignorant on the origins of their belief system.

THe most effective and objective method of researching early Christian thought and beliefs would probably be to read whole writings of the ECF's - although I agree they were not infalliable.

I just don't undertand how an Iraneus in the early 100's can speak of the Lord's Supper in a Real Presence sort of way - that really concerns me - does it you?

Have you ever read the writings of the ECF's? Have you ever read the arguments on the other side of the debate or neutral sources if they exist - I think its only fair that we research the other side to get a more balanced perspective - the sources you gave me are 100% reformed which will just verify what I already know (although I am interested in their takes on Sola Scriptures - I just wished it could have been proven in less than 3 volumes in the case of Webster).

But God did sanction the formation of early churches, right? - I guess we have to give the early church some credit for perserving the written word,

At what point do you believe the early church completelty fell away???

Was it paganism and Constantine - that can't be because we see 'false doctrines' circulating much ealier.

Is it as Hilsop's 'The Two Babylons' suggest a product of Babylonian beliefs and practices infultrating during the Apostolic CHurch.

I for one do feel the Bible is the most trustworthy and perfect source of truth but when a Catholic apologist takes a literal reading of John 6, references from Paul regarding the celebration of the Lord's Supper and throws in a few ECF's it puts our backs against the wall, no?

AJC,

In addition to Pilgrim's list you should also read Keith Mathison's The Shape of Sola Scriptura (2001). Especially helpful is his tracing of the multi-generational, often incremental, steps by which biblical soundness on certain, but not all, core doctrines devolved over time from the apostles through the pafs and ecfs onward through the middle ages; helpful because RC apologists frequently paint all Protestants as believing that there was no church on earth between the death of John and the nailing of the 95 Theses, while the Reformers insisted upon a continuous church with varying degrees of purity based on its faithfulness to Sola Scriptura.

His primary focus, developing work by Heiko Oberman, is showing that a hermeneutic in which all questions of tradition must be validated against Scripture alone (as opposed to being either tested on other grounds (the predominant modern Catholic/Orthodox tendency) or rejected out of hand (the predominant modern Protestant tendency)) is clearly present both in the apostles, their near successors, and the healthiest ages of the church since.

If you are unable to get the book, I see there is a pretty thorough review of it in the middle of the reviews at Amazon.

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/nope.gif" alt="" /> It doesn't bother me at all. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" /> Why? Because as I mentioned briefly in my first reply, the RCC is well known for their twisting statements of the ECF so that they support their heresies. Even John Calvin spoke of the "Real Presence" of Christ in the Lord's Supper, but what he meant by that was antithetical to what the RCC teaches. Thus, and admittedly, it's been many years since I've read Iraneaus' writings, but when he mentions "Real Presence", it is expedient that one come to understand what he meant (defined) by that term from not only the immediate context where the phrase is found but also from his other writings on the subject. The RCC likes to refer to Augustine's use of the same phrase in the same way as they also do for the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. In both cases, they wrest Augustine's words out of context.

For an excellent rebuttal of the RCC teaching on the "Real Presence" see William Webster's article here: The Eucharist. Let me also commend to you another book written by Keith Mathison, Given For You, which is basically a historical survey and development of the doctrine of the Lord's Supper with special focus upon "Real Presence". You might come to realize that even some of the Reformers erred on this subject, e.g., Calvin not going far enough away from Rome and Zwingli going too far the other way. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Yes, I have read quite a bit of the writings of the ECFs, albeit as I mentioned already, it has been quite a number of years since. And yes, I have also read various other sources on both sides, although I doubt there are many if any that have been "neutral". Lastly, the reason for the 3 volumes of Sola Scriptura by David King and William Webster is I think that they wanted to leave no stone unturned. They so completely annihilate the RCC position and arguments that one would have to conlude the matter has been finally settled. You either have to agree with them or totally ignore the ton of evidence they provide for the defense of the biblical, Protestant position.

Yes, God not only "sanctioned" but ordained the establishment of the early churches via the direct work of the Holy Spirit as the Lord Christ said He would. Let us never forget, that the "early churches" are not those of Iraneaus, Justin Martyr, et concludepreservingcompletelyal, but rather those in Galatia, Ephesus, Corinth, Philippi, etc. And as I also mentioned before, even in those foundational churches, heresy was present and needed to be dealt with. (cf. also Rev. 2 & 3) So, is it so surprising that after the passing of the Apostles, who doubtless had a tremendous and positive influence over those churches, that the Evil One would continue to attack the church with all manner of heresy? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratchchin.gif" alt="" /> That is why ALL the writings of men are to be scrutinized by Scripture..... ah... SOLA SCRIPTURA is an indispensable doctrine and without which it is impossible to come to the truth. (John 8:31, 21; 16:13; 17:17)

In His grace,

Not really. In the first place, Irenaeus certainly did not espouse Transubstantiation (he did consider the Lord's Supper to be a sacrifice of some sort). In the second place, his statements regarding the Lord's Supper are frequently pulled out of context and made to mean something they don't; probably any quote you see from his book, Against Heresies, has to do, not with the so-called "Real Presence," but with the inconsistencies of the Gnostics who offer the created things of the Lord's Supper up to Christ, who the Gnostics believed was not the Creator. In the third place, the ECF are no more monolithic on this point than on any other point, and the RCC sees fit to pick and choose whichever statements of whichever ECF serve their purposes best--which is just they same way they handle Holy Writ.


First of all, if we want to be "literal," we have to realize that the Lord's words in John 6 were not spoken concerning the Lord's Supper, which hadn't even been instituted yet. Second, one ought always to read what Christ spoke to His disciples immediately after His teaching on eating His flesh and drinking His blood: "Does this cause you to stumble? What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life" (John 6:61-63). So I ask the Roman apologist, how does he understand this "literally"? Moreover, shall we understand Jesus' to be speaking "literally" when He says that He is the door--I mean, is His body really a door made out of wood, and is the Lord's Supper really transformed into wood?

So don't be intimidated by Roman foolishness. There are plenty of resources out there, and you can even find many of the ECF writings online to read for yourself. But remember that no man trumps the authority of Scripture. There's a lot worthwhile in the ECF, but also a lot that is unbiblical.

According to Keating revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle - but you guys would dispute that Catholic traditon encompasses Apostolic teaching but is actually a product of the Councils?

The RCC would not today agree with all of the councils. They would not agree with a lot that the Council of Orange wrote:

http://www.the-highway.com/Orange.html

CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him "unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44), as he also says to Peter, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3).

JB

I do agree with Augustine's take on human depravity and I don't know how you can get around John 6:44 w/out alterting the meaning or twisting it around somewhat. The other verses you quoted are noteworthy as well.

But what about:


SO the 'BELIEVING' that is spoken of here is a type of believing that will lead to true repentance and fleaing from sin?

Because when you hear that those who believe will not perish this can be taken at face value. So what is truely meant here that those 'who believe will not perish' and does this apply to us or is this message specifially meant for the first Christians who were experiencing Jesus for the first time?

Are you asking about a particular verse in that passage e.g., vs. 36? Don't overlook the verb tenses either by concentrating upon a single word. For example, the word "believeth" (Grk: pisteuwon) is a present particle and the word "hath" (Grk: eXei, Eng: has) in vs. 36 is a present indicative. So the text is saying, the ones believing, or the believing ones [already] have [do now possess] eternal life. In other words, it would be wrong to interpret the text as saying something like, "If one believes they will have eternal life."

I'm not sure what you are asking, if anything, in the first part of your question but as to who this statement applies to it certainly applies to all universally. Why would you think that it only applied to those living in Christ's day?

In His grace,

Specifically John 3:16 -

All Christians believe.

So how are we distinguishing that some who believe will be saved and others won't?

The verse clearly says:

Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that.....

* whosoever 'believeth' in him 'should not perish', but have everlasting life.

Thanks!

AJC,

The verse clearly says, "believers in Him should not perish" or "the believing ones should not perish". The "whosoever" doesn't exist. It's a translation of the participle form of pisteuw. But aside from the proper translation of the word "to believe" the CONTEXT forbids a meaning that would conclude the text is teaching "free-will". True believers are infallibly saved. (Jh 6:39, 40, 44, 47, 50, 51, 54-57)

For a proper interpretation of John 3:16, see the following articles:

1) God's Election in John 3:16, by L.R. Shelton, Sr.

2) God So Loved the World, by Homer Hoeksema

3) An Exposition of John 3:16, by John Owen

4) The 'World' of John 3:16 Does Not Mean 'All Without Exception', by David Engelsma

In His grace,

<<After debating with some Catholics for quite some time I agreed to read up on the other side of the debate - I think every protestant should read this book by Karl Keating.>>


AJC,

There are several problems here.

Three points.

1) Only the full consensus of the Church Fathers is authoritative for Catholics from the time of Trent on, it was never the total consensus. From a short time before that the Church Fathers were hidden from practically everyone in the mid-late middle ages. Their rediscovery by Catholic Priests like Jan Hus and Martin Luther and Huldrych Zwingli and seminary student Jean Chauvin (John Calvin) was the real cause of the Reformation and not simony or the Inquisition – both Catholics and Protestants loved money and lands and both burned those they disagreed with at the stake.

2) The terms used for the real presence by both Reformers and Catholics were interchangeable before the Council of Trent. Luther – consubstantiality, Calvin – substantiality and Trent - transubstantiation. Notice substance in all of these. Real and substantially recreated again by the power of God and NOT man, the unbloody sacrifice made present again. The bloody sacrifice was on Calvary once for all. Prior to Trent those three terms and 25 more for a total of 28 were all acceptable.

3) Neither Karl Keating nor Scott Hahn nor any of the other of the post Vatican II novus ordo Tubingen ultra liberal protestant higher critical pantheistic evolutionary theist uninspired type of argumentists have any recognition due to them as Christian or Catholic or Theologically Orthodox in any sense.

The Early Church Fathers were the ones who preserved scripture and it's hermeneutic, not the reformers who came came many centuries latter.

If John 6:44, then also the verse a little further on:

John 6:
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. (6-52) If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.(DRV)

If Christ gave His flesh for the eternal life of those who believe and He says "This is My body...This is My blood...do this in anamnesin [anamnesin - make manifest again]" in His institution of the Eucharist only someone willfully blind could ignore the meaning, which all the Church Fathers taught and many died for, not willing to combine the Eucharist with the table of devils. Nowadays, most of the churches have gone a whoring after the false gods: world parliament of religions, the abominations at Assisi [including the reformed], support of abortion [moloch], idolatry of mammon, fornication and adultery as somehow OK as long as it isn't homosexual [both heterosexual and homosexual fornication are damned and forbidden by God], homosexual fornication as OK since others [the directly above] allow their own brand, homosexual marriage - a perversion against God's law that most pagans wouldn't even have anything to do with, secret rapture [nothing more than the ancient docetic denial of the resurrection -- which is apostasy]...the list goes on.

We are in the middle of the Great Apostasy.