why not go straight to the apostles/apostolic writings? (The 27 books of the New Testament ) Only those writings/ Scriptures are infallible, since they are God-breathed. 2 Timothy 3:16
Athanasius (bishop of Alexandria, deacon at Council of Nicea 325; bishop from 328-373 AD, exiled 5 times for his defense of the Deity of Christ and the doctrine of Nicea (Christ is eternal and “homo-ousias ” (same substance) with the Father, and the Trinity) agrees with us: “in these alone is the doctrine of godliness ” Festal letter 39, And “The Scriptures are self-sufficient” for faith, & teaching And ” Vainly do they run around seeking a council where as the scriptures are fully sufficient” I will get references in next comment.
After listing the 27 books of the NT in his famous Easter Letter of 367 AD, Athanasius writes, “These are the fountains of salvation that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness.” (Athanasius, Festal Letter 39) Notice the word “alone” here. There is “Sola Scriptura” in a basic, general principle form.
“Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faiths sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.” (De Synodis, 6) (On the Councils, 6)
“For indeed the holy and God-breathed Scriptures are self-sufficient for the preaching of the truth.” (Against the Gentiles, 1:3)
“self – sufficient” points to the sufficiency of Scripture and the perspicuity (clearness) of Scripture on the main things, and the self-authenticating nature of Scripture.
I will be commenting more on these later, as time allows.
Several points that stood out in the Sola Scriptura debate. 1. Trent did not emphasize his previous emphasis that he used a liberal scholar’s take on “Theopneustos” θεοπνευστος (God-breathed) that “All Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16) – rather, Trent has several other videos and in the debate vs. Gavin Ortlund, that he claimed that “God-breathed” means “life-giving”; using a liberal scholar who does not believe that the apostle Paul wrote 1-2 Timothy nor Titus, John C. Poirier. in his book,The Invention of the Inspired Text.
2. Trent was demanding that the exact words be found in canonical Scripture: “The Scriptures are the only infallible rule for faith and practice” and “the 27 books of the NT” or the “The 66 books of the Bible”. Demanding exact words reminds of the Muslim demand on us, “where did Jesus say, “I am God; worship Me ?” Dr. White pointed this out at the beginning of the debate.
3. Sam Shamoun, who constantly follows Dr. White in order to criticize him; and Shamoun seems eaten up with bitterness and anger against Dr. White (see more on that in several articles) – in his response on his You Tube channel, claimed that Trent Horn won because Ignatius did not have the full canon around 108-117 AD, and therefore could not apply “Sola Scriptura” in his church ministry. This is not a good argument, for 1. the 27 books of the NT and the 39 books of the OT already existed; (unless Shamoun wants to argue that some of them, as liberals do, were written after 96 AD. ) 2. We only have 7 small letters of Ignatius – it is possible he wrote more and there are no longer extant; and it is also possible that he had the other books of the NT, or most of them, but he just does not mention them in his writings. 3. It is not a good argument to make that just because someone does not mention 2 or 3 John or 2 Peter or Jude or Philemon, then that means they did not exist yet. (as Tertullian and Irenaeus, who both mentioned 22 out of the 27 books of the NT as holy Scripture.) Protestants believe all the NT books & letters (originally all individual rolled up scrolls) all existed as soon as the ink dried and they were sent to different areas in the Mediterranean world. (from around 45 AD to 96 AD) It was only later, in the late second century and third century that the scrolls were flattened out and attached with string to other books & letters, thus forming the first “Codices” (singular: Codex), which later because the modern form of a book with a binding and cover. (see my many other articles on the canon issue and on Sola Scriptura at the side bar categories.)
The Purgatory Debate:
As Dr. White pointed out in his analysis of both debates at the same time – Trent made 2 completely different arguments for each of his positions. In the Sola Scriptura debate, he was demanding exact words and phrases and making dogmatic and certain claims against Sola Scriptura, but in the Purgatory debate, he was much more ambiguous and much less dogmatics about what the specifics of Purgatory means, and what 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 means. “it could be this”, “it could be that”, etc.
Someone asked about Anglicans who believe in Purgatory – but the 39 Articles, number 22, of the Anglican Church are clear that Purgatory is a “Romish superstitious doctrine and dogma”
XXII. Of Purgatory. The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.
Four books important on the slow development of the doctrine and dogma of Purgatory:
Jacques LeGoff – “The Birth of Purgatory”
Brian Daley – “The Hope of the Early Church”
F. X. Shouppe, “Purgatory”
Robert Bellarmine, “On Purgatory”
Dr. White wrote on Twitter after the debate and asked Trent Horn:
Two quick related questions that should have come up in our debate but didn’t. First, are you familiar with anyone in church history, say, up to 1800, that believed Paul was in error about the day of the Lord (generally), and, more specifically, used that as the means of allowing 1 Cor. 3 to remain relevant to some concept of purgatory (the Akin Argument)? Secondly, in the same time frame, do you know of any early church writers all the way up to the modern period who understood τὸ ἔργον in 1 Cor 3 to refer to converts, as suggested in light of the thesis of Daniel Frayer-Griggs?
Some of my comments I made on Twitter after the debate on Purgatory:
When did the Roman Catholic Church change the doctrine?
from Centuries of burning and suffering in Purgatory with time lessened by penances and indulgences (200 or 900 years, etc, )to just an instant final rush of sanctification?
Just think of all the centuries of suffering of the poor people who had to listen to all the sermons about 900 years or 200 years in purgatory, and the anxiety and trauma that caused , – to just dismiss that as theological opinion seems really problematic. No wonder Luther protested the indulgences which led to the debate with Yohan Eck, which led to Diet of worms and denial of Purgatory and his conviction about Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura.
But the Roman Catholic Church taught for centuries (Crusades to 1500s to 1800s (Schoupe’s book) that it was 100 or 200 or 900 or 10 years or eight months and that indulgences can lessen that – how does that fit with modern concept of saying it’s just an instant/ cleansing? Isn’t that a massive real change?
Catechism of the Council of Trent, 1566, Pope Pius V It is much more than remedial or medicinal / healing / cleansing- rather it is “to atone to the angered mind”; and “compensation”. So Trent Horn and Jimmy Akin contradict previous historical tradition and historical theology of the Roman Catholic Church. It also included time in Purgatory for centuries, with indulgences able to lessen time. When did it change to “in an instant at death” ? What an affront to the all satisfying atonement of Christ! Hebrews 10:10-14; Galatians 2:21; Romans 3:21-26; Romans 4:5-8; Romans 4:16; 5:1 “Satisfaction is the full payment of a debt; for that is sufficient or satisfactory to which nothing is wanting. Hence, when we speak of reconciliation to favor, to satisfy means to do what is sufficient to atone to the angered mind for an injury offered; and in this sense satisfaction is nothing more than compensation for an injury done to another. But, to come to the object that now engages us, theologians make use of the word satisfaction to signify the compensation man makes, by offering to God some reparation for the sins he has committed.” (the general meaning of Satisfaction, page 182) See even more details in this Anglican’s analysis:
“Punishment” Seems to contradict 1 John 4:18 & Hebrews 10:10-14. But mostly you argued it is a medicinal/ healing/ cleansing for the soul in an instant. ( like the CS. Lewis take) How can that it be punishment & compensation to the divine anger.( per catechism of Trent); and when did the Roman Catholic Church change it from Centuries of burning and suffering in Purgatory with time lessened by penances and indulgences (200 or 900 years, etc, )to just an instant final rush of sanctification?
A couple of other comments:
On 1 Corinthians 3:15 – escape and be saved, “as through fire”
some parallel passages – “like a stick (a brand) plucked from the fire” – Zechariah 3:2 (and see context of 3:1-5 – a great illustration of Justification by Faith Alone.
Amos 4:11 – “you were as a brand plucked out of the burning”
Dr. White pointed out “suffer loss” means “loose the reward” – as in Philippians 3:7-8 – “I have suffered the loss of all things for the sake of Christ.”
Our bad works done from wrong motivations will be burned up, but we shall be saved, as through fire. The “as” is very important. There is no suffering in satis passio (the suffering of atonement; or satisfaction of atonement) – Christ made a full and complete atonement for us believers in Christ. (2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 2:21; Hebrews 10:10-14; 7:24-25)
Irenæus (wrote around 180-202 AD) says Jesus opened Mary’s womb (aperians vulvam, Against Heresies 4:33:11), a “denial of virginity in partu” (during birth) – Also, Against Heresies 3:21:10 and 3:22:4 the way he compares to creation’s ground (as yet, virgin soil) with Eve and Mary (as yet virgins), Irenaeus is implying that since the ground later became tilled and fertilized, and Eve also later had children; he is saying that Mary also, after birthing Jesus (that Matthew 1:18 and 1:25 make clear), had other children.
Joshua Charles thinks that disagreements over baptism, the Lord’s supper, and church government are a problem for Protestants.
Also, everyone cannot be a scholar. That is true, but that seems to be a smoke-screen for “just trust us” (the Roman Catholic Church, himself as a scholar of the early church fathers, and the Popes through the centuries.) Joshua Charles is a former Protestant and White House speech writer (for Vice President Mike Pence during the Trump administration), but he had the time and spent a lot of time in reading and studying the early church fathers. Unfortunately, he came to the wrong conclusions about them, and like so many, has bought into the John Henry Newman development of doctrine argument, similar to my friend Rod Bennett.
I love all conservative Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Anglicans, conservative Weslyans also, as my brothers and sisters in Christ, even though we disagree about baptism. I am a Reformed Baptist, with the conviction that baptism is only for those that make a credible profession of faith in Christ first. The Scriptural order is “repent and believe”, then be baptised. Baptism is like a seal on faith, as Tertullian wrote in “On Repentance”, 6.
All Protestants agree that baptism is a part of the command of the Lord Jesus Christ to make disciples, and part of the great commission. (Matthew 28:19) The disagreements are over when a person can be baptized (believer’s baptism vs. infant baptism – believer’s baptism or disciple’s baptism – after repentance and faith – which the Scriptures clearly teach (there is no infant baptism in the Scriptures), and which Justin Martyr clearly affirms in his First Apology 61 – there is no infant baptism there. (in 150 AD) Justin clearly says the person must first be taught and learn and accept and believe and repent and fast before being baptized. “they are illumined in their understandings” – they have to be taught doctrine and come to understand sin and who Christ is, etc. Infant baptism was clearly a development in the late second century and early third century. This is demonstrated in the book, “Baptism in the early church” by Stander and Louw (2 paedobaptists) (see my other articles in the side bar categories of Baptism and baptismal regeneration.)
The first clear reference is in Hippolytus (215 AD) and implied by Tertullian’s exhortation to wait for baptism until the person is old enough to understand. (On Baptism, 18) There are other disagreements such as the mode – immersion vs. pouring vs. sprinkling -that is less important, since the Didache lays out the exceptions when there is not enough water for immersion. The Eastern Orthodox -the Greeks agree with the Baptists that baptizo means “immersion” – getting dunked all the way and surrounded and immersed.
Joshua Charles makes the comment about the “one dude” (The Pope). That because everyone cannot be a scholar, they need to trust the “one dude” (Peter, and they claim, the Popes through history as successors of the office of the Papacy, beginning with Peter) and the 11 other dudes (the other apostles and their succession of bishops throughout history.) The “one dude” you have now is a heretic and does not know how to interpret Scripture at all. (Pope Francis) Peter and the other apostles would condemn him. (changing the long tradition that the death penalty is valid for some extreme cases; his statements on homosexuality, his synod on synodality where they are in process of seeking to change the rules of election of the Pope and to affirm LGBTQ relationships, already blessing same-sex couples, etc. ) Why would any thinking person who loves Jesus and Bible want to submit to him? Many of the past Popes were heretics also. Robert Sungenis admitted this in his debate with James White on the infallibility of the Pope – Honorius – anathematized as a heretic at the 6th Ecumenical Council – 680-681 AD; and pronounced a heretic for 300+ years afterward by every Pope who succeeded him. This alone defeats the 1870 infallibility dogma. Unam Sanctum of 1302 by Pope Boniface VIII is a massive contradiction to the Scriptures (Salvation by grace through faith alone (Scripture) vs. salvation by submission to the Pope – Boniface VIII) – why would anyone want to follow and submit to such heretics? Also Leo X and his massive wicked campaign of indulgences to raise money to build St. Peter’s Basilica. You Roman Catholics have many disagreements among yourselves about interpretations on many issues; so your argument is moot and carried no weight. (Trads. Rad-Trads, the New Mass vs. Latin Mass, Sedevacantists, the Old Catholic Church (Ignaz Von Dollinger), Catholics for LGBTQ, catholics for women priests, pro-choice Catholics (Nancy Pelosi, Biden, the Kennedys, etc.) scholars such as the late Raymon Brown who taught that the gospel birth narratives are not historical, etc.) Gavin Ortlund has rightly demonstrated that Nicea 2, 787 AD on the veneration of icons, contradicts previous earlier church history tradition and practice. Also, your church contradicts itself by the recent ruling on “blessing same sex couples” and the reverse on the death penalty; and Vatican 2 and post-Vatican theology (CCC # 841, & # 847 contradicts earlier history on “no salvation outside the Church”. Gavin Ortlund has also demonstrated in his many videos that you guys are wrong on the Papacy, the Bodily Assumption of Mary, Purgatory, Indulgences, icons, relics, etc. It is this modern movement of former Protestants who are demanding that people be scholars (experts in the early church fathers, which not many people have the time to read and study and grasp) – informed mostly by arguments by Cardinal John Henry Newman (who was a scholar and had time to think and write these things out over several decades – he even admitted his conversion was a slow process. A person does not have time to be a scholar (which is true, in principle) – but it is you guys who demand “just submit to the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church” – without thinking. My friend Rod Bennett said this by using (abusing) Proverbs 3:5 on me – “do not lean on your own understanding” Boniface VIII said, “just submit”. Unam Sanctum 1302. Sorry, a thinking Protestant who loves Jesus and knows the Scriptures is more equipped to handle your arguments. Also, those Protestants that do have time to read and study the early church fathers and church history are not fooled by your tactics of “just trust the chief dude” or “trust us who have had time and claim to be experts in the early church fathers”.
Joshua Charles blocked me on Twitter when I was able to quote Irenaeus in context and demonstrate that he did not teach a nascent Roman Catholicism, which Joshua and others like him claim. My friend Rod Bennett also claimed the same thing, in his book, “Four Witnesses”. If Protestants have the time, you can equip yourself to go toe to toe with these former Protestants who are now Roman Catholic. Don’t trust them! and don’t trust “the one chief dude” (The Pope). Trust in Christ alone and keep studying the Scriptures and grow in a Biblical, conservative, healthy, balanced Protestant Church.
For more on baptismal regeneration and Baptism, click on the side bar categories.
The 6 minute Case for Sola Scriptura – that Scripture alone is the only infallible rule of faith and practice – that Scripture is the final court of appeals, above traditions, councils, creeds, bishops and Popes in church history. Note: the only infallible rule. It is not the “only rule” – there are secondary authorities like creeds and some of the early councils and church authority, theologians, pastors – these are secondary and tertiary.
This is excellent by Dr. Gavin Ortlund of Truth Unites – I encourage people watching this to watch several times and use the pause button to read and think about the longer quotes and dates of when they took place.
This demonstrates the Protestant position is superior to the claims of Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy (like the Coptic Church and Armenian Church) and the Assyrian Church of the East.
see also his excellent explanation of Protestantism as a renewal movement within the historic understanding of “Catholic” (Universal)
“Even Simon Magus once came to the Laver: he was baptized, but was not enlightened; and though he dipped his body in water, he enlightened not his heart with the Spirit: his body went down and came up, but his soul was not buried with Christ, nor raised with Him”
Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386 AD), Catechetical lectures, prologue, 2
This seems to go against ex opere operato (“from the work, it works” – that it is effective by the bare activity of the ritual) power of water baptism – and hence, baptismal regeneration
Sam Shamoun and William Albrecht are caught mis-understanding the argument that Dr. James White was making about Jerome’s reason and argumentation for the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. They accuse Dr. White of lying, thereby slandering him. All Dr. White was saying was that Jerome’s argument for “brothers of the Lord” meant “cousins”, and that that (the cousin argument for brother) was a new argument or position. Dr. White was not saying that there was not belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary at all before Jerome. Dr. White even documented that in his book,
“Mary, Another Redeemer?(1998) Before Jerome, the argument was that Joseph was a widower and his first wife died, and so the “brothers and sisters of the Lord” in the gospels (Matthew 12:46-50; 13:55; Mark 3:31-35, 6:3; Luke 8:19-21; John 2:12; John 7:3-5) are sons and daughters of Joseph by a previous marriage. (not cousins, as Jerome claims)
See the 3 videos later below for the video that Shamoun and Albrecht responded to, their own video (full of Sam’s typical anger, bellicosity, vitriol and ad hominem), and Javier Perdomo’s video, and his two written articles (see links below) demonstrating that Shamoun and Albrecht are wrong.
The five main earlier (than Jerome) writings on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, that make the argument that Joseph was a widower and had children by a previous marriage are below. There are others probably, but this covers the main ones.
The Apocryphal Proto-Evangelium of James, around 150 AD.
Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, around 198 AD.
Origen, around 249 AD, but who based his information on the Proto-Evangelium of James
Hilary of Poitiers, around 354 AD.
Epiphanius of Salamis, Cyprus, around 375 AD
Notice Origen bases his belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary on the Proto-Evangelium of James, which was an apocryphal document that had elements of Gnosticism in it, probably written around 150 AD.
But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is called, or “The Book [Protoevangelium] of James,” that the brothers of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that her body, which was appointed to minister to the Word, which said, “The Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you” [Lk 1:35], might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it reasonable that Jesus was the first fruit among men of the purity that consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it is not pious to ascribe to any other than her the first fruit of virginity.
Origen, Commentary on Matthew 10:17 (249 AD)
Catholic Answers, an apologetic ministry defending Roman Catholicism, writes:
Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion).
They also quote from the apocyphal and Gnostic Proto-Evangelium of James:
This document is Gnostic because it claims baby Jesus just beamed out of Mary, without going through the birth canal and breaking her hymen, implying that there is something wrong with a natural human birth through the birth canal of a mother. This idea denigrates the real humanity of the birth process and the humanity of Jesus (although the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox churches do not deny Jesus is fully human.) (paragraph 19-20, see below*, after the quotes from church fathers.)
“. . . he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’”
The Proto-Evangelium of James, 8-9, 150 AD (my emphasis)
“But, as appears, many even down to our own time regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the puerperal state, although she was not. For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin.”
Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, book 7, paragraph 16, around 198 AD.
“If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate”
Hilary of Poitiers, Commentary on Matthew 1:4, 354 AD.
“To begin with, when the Virgin was entrusted to Joseph—lots having compelled her to take this step—she was not entrusted to him for marriage, since he was a widower. (3) He was called her husband because of the Law, but it is plainly follows from the Jewish tradition that the Virgin was not entrusted to him for matrimony. (4) It was for the preservation of her virginity in witness to the things to come—[a witness] that Christ’s incarnation was nothing spurious but was truly attested, as without a man’s seed < but> truly brought about by the Holy Spirit. 7,5 For how could such an old man, who had lost his first wife so many years before, take a virgin for a wife?”
Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion, Section 78:7, 5, Against the Antidikomarians (those that speak against Mary), 375 AD
The original video that Shamoun and Albrecht are responding to:
Shamoun and Albrecht’s video accusing James White of lying, thus mis-understanding him and slandering him. (typical of Shamoun’s sinful behavior on line – full of anger, cursing, insults, ad hominem argumentation, bellicosity, bravado, bullying, etc. See my 6 part series on Sam Shamoun’s need for repentance.
Javier Perdomo carefully demonstrates that Shamoun and Albrecht are mis-understanding and slandering; especially since they really know that James White knows about the earlier sources, as they have interacted with White’s videos and Dividing Line programs before. And James White mentions the Proto-Evangelium of James in his book, Mary, Another Redeemer? Javier does a good job of carefully documenting this, and also about J. B. Philips commentary about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary in early church history.
21. “But as we do not deny what is written, so we do reject what is not written. We believe that God was born of the Virgin, because we read it. That Mary was married after she brought forth, we do not believe, because we do not read it.” Jerome, Against Helvidius, Defense of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, 21
– this statement by Jerome is amazing because we read, “Joseph, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife . . . ” Matthew 1:20 and that “he kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.” he kept her a virgin until (heos hou / ‘εως ‘ου ) – most of the time, the 2 words together mean a change in the situation. The context is even more decisive and the cumulative effect of that with the brothers and sisters passages. In Matthew 1, verse 18, “before they came together, Mary was found to be pregnant by the Holy Spirit” – “before they came together” and the over all context of the paragraph – about betrothal, virginity, marriage, and birth, it is self-evident that Matthew means that Mary and Joseph had a normal sexual relationship in marriage after Jesus was born.
* The part of the Proto-Evangelium of James that is Gnostic:
And the midwife said to him: Is this true? And Joseph said to her: Come and see. And the midwife went away with him. And they stood in the place of the cave, and behold a luminous cloud overshadowed the cave. And the midwife said: My soul has been magnified this day, because my eyes have seen strange things — because salvation has been brought forth to Israel. And immediately the cloud disappeared out of the cave, and a great light shone in the cave, so that the eyes could not bear it. And in a little that light gradually decreased, until the infant appeared, and went and took the breast from His mother Mary. And the midwife cried out, and said: This is a great day to me, because I have seen this strange sight. And the midwife went forth out of the cave, and Salome met her. And she said to her: Salome, Salome, I have a strange sight to relate to you: a virgin has brought forth — a thing which her nature admits not of. Then said Salome: As the Lord my God lives, unless I thrust in my finger, and search the parts, I will not believe that a virgin has brought forth.
20. And the midwife went in, and said to Mary: Show yourself; for no small controversy has arisen about you. And Salome put in her finger, and cried out, and said: Woe is me for mine iniquity and mine unbelief, because I have tempted the living God; and, behold, my hand is dropping off as if burned with fire.
Proto-Evangelium of James, 19-20
Mary, the Mother of Jesus, is indeed a blessed and godly believing woman! She was a virgin before Jesus was born and we defend the doctrine of the virgin conception of Jesus. (Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-35, Luke chapter 2) Jesus had no human father. Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, and was always God by nature, from the womb, and pre-existed in eternity past with the Father. (John 1:1-5; 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8) Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God.
However, the Roman Catholic Church (and Eastern Orthodox and the other eastern ancient churches) has over-exalted her and gone too far, and “exceeded what is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6) – “do not go beyond what is written”.
27 While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.” 28 But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.” Luke 11:27-28
Even the Word of God here in Luke shows that the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East go too far and go beyond Scripture.
You can find it at various sellers, including Amazon.
This book is very insightful. Especially the beginning that gives more background on John Henry Newman. His infamous statement and claim: ”To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant” was in the context of his disagreements and conflicts in his relationship with his brother Francis Newman.
Chris Castaldo says that Francis Newman was one of the founders of the Plymouth Brethren (& Dispensational Theology, and the slogan, “No Creed but Christ” was common for those churches, and also the Campbell movement of the “Church of Christ”.), while this wikipedia article says he was enamored with them for a while, so that is unclear to me.
Later, Francis Newman became a Deist. He attempted to become a missionary for a while.
It was interesting how long it took Newman to slowly convert, away from Sola Fide (Justification by Faith Alone) – Newman put the sacraments and baptismal regeneration over justification by faith; and eventually rejected the imputation of Christ’s righteousness and also was attracted to the discipline of clerical celibacy of the Roman Catholic Church. I am always amazed at the attraction of physical sacraments as means by which people think that they cause grace to come to us – like the bare ceremony of baptism and the Lord’s supper or staring at the consecrated host in the receptacles (a little tabernacle or the Monstrance) at a Roman Catholic church or praying to or touching or kissing an icon or statue of Mary.
Addendum: (January 17, 2023)
Here is an outline of the book and argumentation:
A. Psychological Reasons
Authority Hunger
2. Holiness Deficit
3. The Inner Ring – this one was new to me, and explains how people want to be in on the intellectuals of movers and shakers in society, culture and politics – especially in morality and ethics. Roman Catholics are better at influencing in the media and political issues. Most of the Supreme Court Justices are Roman Catholics and this is an area that intersects with principles that conservative Evangelical Protestants agree with. This is probably a large part of what motivated Joshua Charles a lot, since he was a speech writer for VP Mike Pence, and rubbed shoulders with many conservative intellectuals in the Washington, D. C. area for years. The authors make a great point about the Supreme Court and Roman Catholics like Ryan Anderson and Robert George as conservative intellectuals in morality, ethics and cultural issues.
B. Theological Reasons:
The Quest for Certainty – this one was very important for my friend Rod Bennett. Click on the side bar for more articles about his conversion to Roman Catholicism.
2. To Be in touch with History / Church History – this was also very important to Rod Bennett.
Tired of Division – this was also important to my friend Rod Bennett.
2. Tired of Shallowness
3. Tired of Irreverence
My friend Rod Bennett, whom I have written about before here on his conversion to Roman Catholicism, definitely expressed to me at least 4 of these 9 reasons. Especially the desire for 1. Assurance (on the canon and the right interpretation), 2. to be in touch with History and Church History, 3. tired of Division and 4. Shallowness. The 5th one that maybe part of Rod’s journey – The Tangible Grace – I don’t know if Rod was at first motivated by that; but I think Rod was more attracted to art and creativity (as in good movies with a good meaningful plot) – the good movies of old, like “It’s A Wonderful Life”, “Mr. Smith goes to Washington”, etc. and newer ones like Star Wars and the theme of the battle of good vs. evil; and the Lord of Rings Trilogy directed by Peter Jackson, based on J.R. R. Tolkien’s books. (those ghostly souls that helped Aragorn fight and be realeased from their curse seems to have parallels with Purgatory, Indulgences and the basis for ghost stories. We enjoyed Science Fiction, Fantasy, and good ghost stories that had a moral / ethical basis. 6. Hunger Authority, IMO was not Rod, but I think it became that because of his desire for Assurance and History and art and creativity. The issues of Irreverence and Holiness Deficit and the Inner Ring of Intellectuals in Society, did not seem to be the main issues with Rod, but maybe they grew for him as time went on and we lost touch as the years went by.
I will be writing about this helpful book more in the future when I have time.
Anthony Rogers and Tony Costa discuss the Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura and evidence from the early church fathers on the self-attesting / self-authenticating quality of the Scriptures. The quotes from John Calvin and John Owen are also great and foundational for understanding what the Protestant means. The principle is compared to what the church of Rome and the church of the eastern Orthodox claim.
The self-authenticating quality of Scripture is similar in principle to the famous statement of the USA Declaration of Independence, “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by the Creator of certain in-alienable rights – life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness . . . “
I hope to have time to copy and or type out some of the quotes from the video also.
Great material there at Anthony Roger’s You Tube Channel. Anthony defends the Scriptures, the Reformation, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, answers apologetic issues against Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Islam, Unitarianism and other issues.
I wish I had time to listen to all of them and take notes!
Apologetics and Agape 