tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post7975225977580089809..comments2024-03-17T08:25:33.806+00:00Comments on Thoughts of Francis Turretin: Don't Sweat that History Stuff ...Turretinfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-5273988036634502122012-04-13T12:58:18.359+01:002012-04-13T12:58:18.359+01:00Nick,
While I myself an not a church historian, I...Nick,<br /><br />While I myself an not a church historian, I can understand what Rhology and Turretinfan are saying. You have, like most Roman Catholics, rejected Sola Scriptura on the basis of the fact that there are many different interpretations of scripture. However, what you have not realized is that there are many different interpretations of Church History also. For example, over on the Hebrew Studentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-52450421431939797352012-04-12T22:50:47.555+01:002012-04-12T22:50:47.555+01:00As I said with TF, this means early Christianity d...As I said with TF, this means early Christianity didn't carry on the true Gospel, and thus either the immediate post-Apostolic Church went apostate and didn't resurface until Luther, or it means the early Church evolved/devolved into historic Protestantism. To suggest it doesn't matter what the professing Christians from 100-1500 believed and taught is total anti-intellectualism, Nickhttp://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2010/10/justification-by-faith-alone-debate.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-14076504131901577912012-04-12T22:44:49.190+01:002012-04-12T22:44:49.190+01:00TF,
The Bishop of Rome was an authoritative inst...TF, <br /><br />The Bishop of Rome was an authoritative institution by the very fact he was Bishop, and of a very important city. If you are saying he wasn't 'supreme' over the Church, that's a different argument. That distinction is important. For you to argue that there was no Bishop of Rome until the 2nd century doesn't necessarily hurt Catholicism, but I have no idea how Nickhttp://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2010/10/justification-by-faith-alone-debate.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-38832817872268573102012-04-12T14:21:44.686+01:002012-04-12T14:21:44.686+01:00the Bishop of Rome is clearly a major figure in th...<i>the Bishop of Rome is clearly a major figure in the minds of the Nicene Fathers, and even this is problematic for Protestantism</i><br /><br />Who would deny the B of R is a major figure?<br />Clearly it's not equivalent to papal infallibility or even papal supremacy, so...why would this bother me?<br />Why is it problematic?<br /><br /><br /><i>. The only argument at that point is 'Rhologynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-70141189924090237302012-04-12T14:15:35.919+01:002012-04-12T14:15:35.919+01:00Simple - the modern notions of Prot, EO, and RC do...Simple - the modern notions of Prot, EO, and RC don't fit the early Christians. It's really not that hard.<br /><br />They were their own people. They were what they were. We should accept that.<br /><br />Problem is, RCC and EOC <b>can't</b> accept that, because of the claims those churches make. Since Prots don't make those same claims, Prots are in a very favorable position on Rhologynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-76238807501450181992012-04-12T02:35:49.413+01:002012-04-12T02:35:49.413+01:00Hi TF,
I asked about "not there" becau...Hi TF, <br /><br />I asked about "not there" because some would say historically there was a Bishop of Rome but he was not Supreme Pontiff of the Church. <br />The fact is, the 6th canon of Nicaea states the Bishop of Rome has Primacy. While Protestants (and EO) would object that this was not Papal Supremacy, the fact is the Bishop of Rome is clearly a major figure in the minds of the Nickhttp://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2010/10/justification-by-faith-alone-debate.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-85934584217103576372012-04-12T02:18:48.468+01:002012-04-12T02:18:48.468+01:00Rhology,
How can a look at the early Christians ...Rhology, <br /><br />How can a look at the early Christians yield neither Catholics, Eastern orthodox, nor Protestants? <br />To say "nobody" is ridiculous.Nickhttp://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2010/10/justification-by-faith-alone-debate.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-27079695227913405892012-04-11T19:14:25.118+01:002012-04-11T19:14:25.118+01:00Haha, whoops, meant to change "Ecumenical&quo...Haha, whoops, meant to change "Ecumenical" to "Early" there.Rhologynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-21127405808506857942012-04-11T19:13:47.611+01:002012-04-11T19:13:47.611+01:00A seeker need to look no further than the Ecumenic...<i>A seeker need to look no further than the Ecumenical Councils to see that the early Church was not Protestant. That leaves only Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.</i><br /><br />A seeker need to look no further than the Ecumenical Church Fathers to see that the early Church was not Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. That leaves...NOBODY.<br />Maybe Nick's yardstick needs adjusting. Maybe he Rhologynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-50114133247732712512012-04-11T18:58:28.232+01:002012-04-11T18:58:28.232+01:00"Empirical fact: The Papacy as an authoritati..."Empirical fact: The Papacy as an authoritative institution was not there in the early centuries."<br /><br />Define "not there" and "early centuries". Such drive-by comments (without any way to contact him for clarification) ultimately help no one. And the most ironic part about it is that these types of post do the very thing Catholics are accused of doing, namely Nickhttp://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2010/10/justification-by-faith-alone-debate.htmlnoreply@blogger.com