JFJ Forums

You misrepresented the RCC position on " ex oper operato " .  You failed to take in to consideration each of their own specific views on regeneration on if it is done synergistically or monegerstically. The early church fathers in general viewed regeneration not as any inward moral change, but an external change of state or relation. Among the Jews when a heathen became a proselyte to their religion, he was said to be born again.The change of his status from without to within the theocracy which was called regeneration. That term came to be used in the early church and when a person became a  member of the Christian Church he was said to be born anew and that baptism was  rite of enter in to it was called regeneration. This general use of it , is still used by some of embrace baptismal regeneration in this manner such as the church of England. In their view it does not refer to the spiritual change of state in the soul but simply a birth in to the visible church. The RCC does not use it in that manner at all.




They held and embraced other teachings of theirs that you reject. So you do not follow your own standard in yours claims to follow tradition. Since Jesus and the Apostles taught many things not stated in Scripture  ( John 20:30-31; 21:25 ) can you tell me if the Bishop of Rome while sitting from the seat of Peter proclaimed and defined statements of Jesus and the Apostles not recorded in Scripture ? Yes or no ?




I never claimed it as being held by the early church fathers. Your now resorting to strawman arguments and attacking claims I never made now. I appeal to Scripture for my position.



You presented no evidence at all. You only resorted to Anachronism with your quotes of the church fathers. And then using strawman argumentation and miststatements on your claims.

Chafer –

I’m not sure what your point is on asking if the Pope has made dogmatic statements regarding scripture.  Church leaders typically don’t do this.  Scripture is taken as a whole, not singular verses.  Scripture is also understood in light of what has been passed down through sacred tradition.  You are either being argumentative or you do not understand infallibility. So to answer your question, as far as I know, no Pope has ever made dogmatic statements regarding these or any other singular verses in scripture.

How is it a “fallacy” or a “strawman” for me to ask you to provide evidence that the early church drew the same conclusions from scripture that you have regarding baptism?  The truth of the matter is that you cannot provide proof that your view of baptism was held prior to the reformation otherwise you certainly would have by now.  All you are doing is proclaiming your interpretation of scripture is truth and mine, and all ECFs who wrote on the matter, are in error.

Let’s see … your interpretation “is based on the normal literal grammatical historical method” and therefore you are “totally correct”.  Now I have you quoted as saying baptism for infants is “merely getting wet”.  Does this mean that the authors of the Westminster Confession, who approve infant baptism, are incorrect?  Does this mean that your interpretation of scripture is superior to that of the numerous ECFs who wrote on this subject?

Can you please tell me exactly how I misrepresented the RCC understanding of ex opera operato?  You have yet to provide a definition while at the same time proclaim that I’m misrepresenting it.

..... the 19th ecumenical council of the Roman Catholic church (1545–63), highly important for its sweeping decrees on self-reform and for its dogmatic definitions that clarified virtually every doctrine contested by the Protestants. Despite internal strife, external dangers, and two lengthy interruptions....
..... German Protestants, meanwhile, were demanding a reconsideration of all the council's previous doctrinal decrees and wanted a statement asserting that a council's authority is superior to that of the pope.....
..... Pius IV confirmed the council's decrees in 1564 and published a summary of its doctrinal statements; observance of disciplinary decrees was imposed under sanctions.....
......The council, however, failed to heal the schism that had sundered the Western Christian church.

(Excerpts from: Trent, Council of. (2008). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved December 23, 2008.)

David

David,

Sorry if my post wasn't clear.  The quote you have in your reply is out of the context I intended.  Chafer is asking if the Pope has ever made dogmatic statements regarding specific verses from scripture.  Obviously, dogmatic proclamations from scripture as a whole are made from Church Councils (as you've provided an example from Trent).

I think what Chafer is trying to say is that, as a Catholic, I can't know what a particular verse from scripture means unless the Pope has made an infallible proclamation as to it's meaning.  This is a ridiculous statement.  Chafer claims to have learned all about Roman Catholicism from sources (only his friends know about), so he must mean something else, though I'm not exactly sure what. I'm waiting for him to clarify the point he's trying to make.

With much respect to you, Wkirscher, Chafer's statement is not  ridiculous to me particularly when it comes to the specific verse of Matthew 16:18 viz., "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Douay-Rheims Bible). See the discussion on 'Peter and the Papacy' found on:  http://forums.jewsforjesus.org/showthread.php?tid=1557

David

David – I will use your example to try to explain my point.

The office of the Pope did not originate from a person’s interpretation of Mt 16.  You seem to be saying that the RCC made a dogmatic proclamation about Mt 16 and then developed the office of the Pope around it.  This is not how it works.

Let’s start with the concept of Bishop or Episkopoi.  You do agree that the early Church had bishops, or “episkopoi” correct? (you may be more familiar with the term “elder”).  If you read Acts 1, you can see that the very first thing that is done after the new Church is formed, is Judas is replaced. “and his BISHOPRIK let another take.” (1:20, KJV). (other translations “let someone else take over his OFFICE”.  This is the beginning of Apostolic Succession.  As you read through scripture, you can see that nearly every time a new leader (bishop/elder) of a church is appointed, it is done by an ordained bishop, and is done via the laying on of hands.

This process of ordination, known today as Apostolic Succession, originates from the Jewish process of Rabbinic Ordination called “Semicha”.  You can read about it in other threads in this forum. It is also found in many early church writings.

So we can see that before the H.S. ever inspired any N.T. writings, the office of Bishop and Apostolic Succession was already being practiced in the early Church (it was actually already being performed for centuries in the form of the Jewish Semicha).  In other words, Apostolic Succession was not derived from scripture – scripture merely confirms what was already being practiced.

If a person reads scripture with a truly open mind, one cannot deny that Peter was the leader of the Apostles.  This is something even many Protestant scholars acknowledge.  You don’t believe it?  Find a listing of the Apostles where Peter is not listed first.  Find a place in scripture where someone besides Peter is speaking on behalf of all of the Apostles.  It doesn’t matter how fallible Peter was or that he was corrected by Paul, he still was the leader of the Apostles.
(cont …)

(… cont)
So again, we see from scripture, that there was a leader of the Apostles.  The concept of a leader of the bishops (or apostles, or elders) was already in practice since the 12 were commissioned by Jesus himself.  The idea of an apostolic leader of the universal church did not develop from scripture – scripture merely confirms what was already being practiced.

Furthermore, in the case of Peter, he is fulfilling a role that was well understood in the Jewish community.  Mt 16:19, where Peter is granted the Keys of the Kingdom, is a reference to Is 22:22, where Eliakim is granted the keys to the Davidic Kingdom, as the “Al-bayit”.  The “Al-bayit” was an office held by an appointee of the King.  His role was to guide and protect the kingdom in the Kings absence (sort of like a “vice president”).  In Mt 16, Jesus is establishing the office of “al-bayit” for his new Kingdom.  In other words, he is commissioning Peter, the leader of the apostles, to the office responsible for guiding his church.

If you don’t believe this from scripture, you can read all about it in the writings of the early church fathers.  So again, we see here that the notion of a specific office, headed by an ordained successor to the Apostles, was not derived from scripture. Scripture confirms what was already in practice.

So in your example, you are inferring that the Church made a dogmatic proclamation about Mt 16 and then formulated the office of the Pope around that dogmatic proclamation.  This is not the case.  The office was understood in the Jewish community as the “Al-bayit”, and the keys of this office were passed on to Peter and his successors.  This is the dogmatic proclamation that is being made, Mt. 16 is being used to support it.

This is what I mean by saying the RCC does not typically make dogmatic proclamations about individual verses in scripture.  The whole of God’s revelation, through both scripture and sacred tradition, is taken into account.  

This is the case with baptism as well.  To my knowledge, the RCC has not made any dogmatic claims to individual verses of scripture that relate to baptism.  The RCCs understanding of baptism comes from the whole of scripture, as well as what was handed down by the Apostles and practiced in the early church.  This is why you will see numerous early church writings that support the Catholic, Orthodox, and even many Protestants, understanding of baptism.  You will find no writings that support the “symbolic” view of baptism which was introduced after the Reformation.

  This thread is not for explaining away the Roman Church's erroneous interpretation of Matthew 16:19. That debate has been fully exhausted on the thread mentioned in my earlier post 'Peter and the Papacy'.

So even on what you yourself now explain the office of pope was not originated from the dogmatic proclamation of a pope (which in any event is not entirely accurate) then the the papal office as successor of Peter based on erroneous interpretation of Matthew 16 or the human traditions you outline must therefore be FALLIBLE because of the Roman Church's own dogma concerning infalliblity being a perogative only of a Pope.

The fallibility of the Papal succession having now been established then the whole papal system must be thrown into question, including the RC dogmatic statements relating to Baptism in Scripture and The  Early Church.

David

David,

The purpose of my post is quite clear.  It is to show that Catholic dogma is not formulated around isolated verses from scripture as both you and Chafer have suggested.  It is taken from scripture as a whole as well as the traditions of our faith handed down from the apostles.  I gave several examples of this in my last post.  I’m still waiting for Chafer to clarify his point in asking this question.

You’re absolutely right and this is what I was explaining in my post as an example -  the office of the Pope did not originate from a dogmatic proclamation of the Pope.  It originated when Jesus handed the keys of the Kingdom to Peter, the “Al-bayit” and was practiced in the early church prior to any of the N.T. writings.

But I’m not sure why you say my interpretation of Mt 16 is “erroneous” since I’m using infallible scripture to defend it or how you can say it is based on human tradition.  I’ve cited numerous new and old testament verses to prove my interpretation.  Isn’t this what Sola-Scriptura is all about?  What makes your interpretation of scripture any more authoritative than mine?

But let’s get back to the topic of this thread.  Since you’ve become a participant in this thread, perhaps you can help Chafer out.  I’ve asked him to provide some evidence that his scriptural interpretation of baptism (that it is “symbolic” rather than “regenerative”) was ever held prior to the reformation. I have seen nothing from him, nor from anyone else reading these posts.  Maybe you can come up with something.

He claims to hold to the Westminster Confession, which rightfully acknowledges that infants should be baptized, yet he claims that if an infant is baptized, he is “merely getting wet”.  Despite disagreeing with the authors of the Westminster Confession with regard to infant baptism, and disagreeing with the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and many Protestant denominations on the regenerative nature of baptism, Chafer has this to say about his personal interpretation of scripture:

”My interpretation is based on the normal literal grammatical historical method and therefore my conclusions are consistant with it. So in this case I am totally correct in my interpretation.”

So what do you have to say?  Do you agree with Chafers “totally correct interpretation” which he has come up with by applying the principles of Sola-Scriptura?  Do you agree that the authors of the Westminster Confession were wrong about infant baptism?  Do you believe that all of the writings prior to the reformation that describe baptism as being regenerative are wrong?

(p.s. Will you kindly please try to refrain from using the offensive term “papists” in your reply?  Thanks)

It is also equally clear that non-scriptural traditions are FALLIBLE! As long as any religion is based on tradition it is FALLLIBLE. Therefore the Roman Church and its dogma of mixing human tradition is therefore by absolute definition,  FALLIBLE.  Scripture is infallible - Tradition of Apostles is fallible!


That error has already been exhausted on the 'Peter and the Papacy' thread.


It is in error very clearly7 due to attempting to support scripture with a non-scriptural MIXTURE of FALLIBLE TRADITION. This is simply  manipulating scripture by using fallible, imperfect human  tradition to defend the unscripturally indefensible.


The proof lies with the water baptism of Jesus; unless of course you are going to suggest Jesus required 'regeneration'!  You will understand that proof better if you care to study exactly why Jesus was baptised in the River Jordan in the the exact geographic place where he was immersed. It is a subject I have actually preached on.



Sorry, wrongly in my belief. Having said that I see nothing terribly wrong with infant baptism - I don;t think God is going to fall off His Throne over it!


  My stance is that scripture interprets scripture through the Holy Spirit -  PERIOD!  


I have searched carefully and can find no instance where I have used that word in this thread!

David