https://www.youtube.com/@Ousias1
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!
Augustine, On Baptism Against the Donatists – Book 2, Chapter 3, 4
. . . . But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth, either by the discourse of some one who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils; and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed, and that is known which previously lay hid, and this without any whirlwind of sacrilegious pride, without any puffing of the neck through arrogance, without any strife of envious hatred, simply with holy humility, catholic peace, and Christian charity?”
Augustine, On Baptism Against the Donatists, Book 2, 3, 4.
Notice Augustine wrote that the sacred canon of Scripture is ” in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops” (this would include the bishop of Rome! And notice he makes no mention of the bishop of Rome as Pope over all other bishops. ) Scripture trumps all future bishops and councils, and yes, he even says plenary (Ecumenical) councils can be corrected later. That is the point of Sola Scriptura – the Scriptures are the final and only infallible rule of faith for the church.
Trent Horn attempted to rebut the American Gospel presentation of Roman Catholic system of salvation, but he did not really refute anything much. There was one word that they used about purgatory – that we will talk about later in this article.
The first 14 minutes is pure Pelagianism (or maybe we could label it “Semi-Pelagianism” – “we are able to live a life of radical holiness” Assumes infant baptism gives that kind of power. Yet “poorly catechized” points to learning & discipleship, not inherent power in getting wet with right words said over the infant. A child needs to learn about Christ and sin and repentance and faith. Only after conversion (repentance and faith) does a person have the power to live a sanctified life. Growing in holiness – the process of sanctification comes after justification. We are justified by faith alone (Romans 1:17; 3:28; 4:1-16; 5:1; Galatians 1:6-9; 2:16; the gospel of John, 5:24; 3:16; 11:25; 20:30-31; Ephesians 2:1-9; Philippians 3:9; Acts 16:31; but true faith does not stay alone, it results in good works, fruit, change, growth, deeper levels of repentance. (James 2:14-26; Ephesians 2:10; 4:17-25; 1 Thessalonians 4:1-8; Romans chapters 6, 7, 8)
I watched Trent Horn’s rebuttal 3 times, & yet he did not refute the accuracy of their analysis of R. Catholic plan of salvation. At around minute 24:30 Trent says “Mike is right!” (Mike Gendron about baptism), about @ minute 25:14 – “right!” about mortal sin, and around 27:28 – right! about confession to priest to get salvation back. Three times Trent Horn said that the American gospel was right about Roman Catholicism! The time stamps are estimates, so look around those points.
The only good point the Trent Horn made, was the word they used “possibly” about after time in purgatory. The American gospel folks said the person in purgatory will “possibly” someday come out and go to heaven. But Roman Catholic doctrine says those that go to purgatory will for sure eventually come out and go to heaven. But the problem is that for centuries, R. Catholicism taught you spend years or decades or centuries or 300 or 1000 years or 900 years in purgatory. How can anyone know he will eventually be saved? The threat of the fires of purgatory seem like the threat of hell for centuries; especially the manipulation tactics that Johann Tetzel was doing to raise money for St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. (“when a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs”) . This is what animated Martin Luther in 1517. Roman Catholicism needs to clarify about the fact that many taught for centuries that purgatory could be decades or centuries or even millennia suffering in the fires of purgatory. Purgatory and indulgences was taught from the beginning of the Crusades (1095) until after Trent (1545-1563), and into the years after Trent. How long until they stopped teaching on time in purgatory? A Roman Catholic named Allan Ruhl told me that Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) taught time, even centuries in purgatory. In the book on Purgatory by Rev. F. X. Schoope, a Jesuit priest, there are examples of people in purgatory for many years. That book has the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur stamps of approval on them from the Roman Catholic Church as official. (year 1893) Seems that they were teaching this about time and centuries in purgatory into the late 1800s. (you can google it and find out about it)
How long did the Roman Catholic Church teach this stuff about time in purgatory, and when did it end?
See Gavin Ortlund’s videos on Purgatory and Indulgences for more examples of years in Purgatory. And see other debates on Purgatory of Dr. White vs. Peter Stravinstas, Tim Staples, and Robert Sungenis. Side bar category: “Purgatory”.
That issue of indulgences and time in purgatory is what led Martin Luther in 1517 to question the RCC doctrines.
So, Trent Horn says three times that the American Gospel analysis of Roman Catholicism is right! Again – “Mike is right!” or “right!” 24:30 (on baptism); 25:14 (on mortal sin); 27:28 (on confession to a priest to get back salvation) .
Trent kept saying “it is “not faith plus works” or “it is not faith & sacraments” & yet then proceeded to agree that it is baptism & works / sacraments = making sure you don’t commit mortal sins, keep yourself in charity; act of will – saying we are able to obey God & live a life of radical holiness.
Trent Horn mentioned Charles Stanley’s “easy-believe-ism”. I was there personally at First Baptist Church of Atlanta for years – from 1979-1992. Dr. Charles Stanley did not seem to teach that until his son Andy convinced him of that very bad theology. “Free-grace theology” (easy believe-ism) was soundly refuted by John MacArthur in “Faith Works: The Gospel according to the Apostles”. (vs. Zane Hodges, the professor who influenced Andy Stanley, & Andy wrote a lot of Charles’ book on “Eternal Security” for him, especially that section. I actually confronted Andy Stanley on this issue around 1988-1990. (? if I remember correctly) I confronted him because I read two of Zane Hodges books (“The gospel Under Siege” and “Grace in Eclipse”) and found them to be very problematic according to Scripture and what I had already been taught by his father, Dr. Charles Stanley. The forward to “Grace in Eclipse” did not sound like the Dr. Stanley that I knew and had heard for years, being a regular member. I met Andy at a lunch meeting and Andy admitted to me that he actually wrote the forward to “Grace in Eclipse”, and that his dad just read it and agreed and signed it as from him. But deep down, in my opinion, that did not reflect what Dr. Stanley had been teaching for years. I also learned that Andy wrote most of the book, “Eternal Security”. Sometimes after that point, Dr. Stanley was unclear on the issue about someone who constantly practices deliberate sin without any conviction or struggle. By the way, look at where Andy Stanley is today – his sermon on “When Gracie met Truthy”; his recent affirmation of homosexuality and affirming the LGBTQ paradigm; “unhitching from the OT”, “don’t say ‘the Bible says”; “the Bible is not the foundation of our faith”, etc. In my opinion, Andy has drifted outside of Biblical Christianity and is a dangerous false teacher. Andy Stanley needs to repent. It all started with his embracing the easy-believe-ism of Zane Hodges.
Trent Horn admitted that Roman Catholics have other secondary mediators (like Mary & the saints in heaven). He also basically admitted that sacraments keep you on the path to final salvation. Prayers to Mary and the saints is a massive violation of 1 Timothy 2:5, as Christ is the only mediator between God and man. Roman Catholicism, by depending on prayers to Mary, and penance and the Eucharist, etc. is a system of “baptism & faith & works & sacraments”.
About Mark 10 & the rich young ruler- the rich young ruler said, “from my youth I have kept all these” (v. 19) – the guy was self – deceived since Jesus refuted that in Matthew 5:27-30 (root of murder & root of adultery). His god was his money – violation of 2nd commandment. Yes, Jesus confronts the rich and dangers of wealth, but the root of that is showing the reason why the guy did not even recognize his own sin of idolatry and pride and thinking that he kept all the commandments from his youth.
Someone in Twitter wrote that many RCs are “poorly catechized” (the word comes from Luke 1:4 – “that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught” – “what you have been taught” – κατηχήθης – where we get “catechesis” from – that word comes from that Greek word – “to teach orally”. Luke wrote it down, so that Theophilus and now us, can have those things written down so that we can read and be certain of the events and truths of the life of Jesus and the Gospel message. The writing gives us assurance when we read.
“poorly catechized” = demonstrates that a child needs to learn things-about sin, Christ, repentance, faith. “let them learn as they grow” & THEN get baptized. (paraphrase from Tertullian On Baptism, 18 “Let them come, then, while they are growing up; let them come while they are learning”
“Let them come, then, while they are growing up; let them come while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ.” Tertullian, On Baptism, 18
At the end, Trent Horn says, “The Catholic gospel is the gospel” – “repent, receive Christ in baptism, and remain in Christ until death”.
A person receives Christ by repentance and faith in Christ and His atonement & resurrection (John 1:12-13; Romans 3:21-26; Romans chapters 1-5; 10:9-10), not by water baptism (1 Cor. 1:13-17) The power to live a holy life in Romans 6 assumes the person has understood first about sin (Romans 1-3, and faith in Christ (chapters 4-5) – that faith in Christ justifies, not by good works. (Romans 3:28; 4:1-16; 5:1)
“Remain in Christ until death” = don’t commit moral sin and partake of the sacraments – penance, confession to a priest, Eucharist (eat My flesh and drink My blood), pray to Mary and the saints for extra help and grace; do works of charity; “you are able to live a life of radical holiness” – this is also a system of faith plus works – the sacramental system is a system of works added onto faith that is required for justification, since you don’t think justification is a once for all event in the life of a believer (the point of conversion, the point of repentance and faith). Very clearly contradicts Romans 4:1-6 and 5:1, and the whole book of Galatians, the gospel of John, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 Peter, and the rest of the NT. Trent Horn denied Roman Catholicism is “faith plus works”, but demonstrated by his defense of the RC system that it is “faith plus works”. All Roman Catholics counter the doctrine of justification by faith alone with James 2:24, which in Trent’s system is the “plus works” of “faith plus works”. Rome interprets James 2:24 wrongly, wrenching it from its context of 2:14-26. James is clearly talking about the evidence of true faith, which all Protestants agree with – that the good works of Abraham willing to sacrifice his son in Genesis 22, is the proof of his faith back in Genesis 15:6. (see James 2:14-26)
Again, we are justified by faith alone (Romans 1:17; 3:28; 4:1-16; 5:1; Galatians 1:6-9; 2:16; the gospel of John, 5:24; 3:16; 11:25; 20:30-31; Ephesians 2:1-9; Philippians 3:9; Acts 16:31; but true faith does not stay alone, it results in good works, fruit, change, growth, deeper levels of repentance. (James 2:14-26; Ephesians 2:10; 4:17-25; 1 Thessalonians 4:1-8; Romans chapters 6, 7, 8)
James taught in James chapter 2, verses 14-26, that good works are the result and vindicate and prove that someone has true faith. Just words (“I believe in Christ”, or “I have faith”) are not enough that real faith is there. The demons believe that God is one and true and yet shudder. (James 2:19) Demonic faith is not trusting faith that has a commitment to Christ. Real faith is living and active and results in good works. The meaning of “justify” in James 2:24 is the same as in Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:35 and 1 Timothy 3:16 – in the sense of “prove” or “vindicate” or “show to be true”. The context makes it clear.
Roman Catholics bring up James 2:24 and that the phrase is there “not by faith alone’.
Is it a Contraction to Galatians 2:16, Romans 3:28, Romans 4:1-8, Phil. 3:9; John 5:24, John 3:16, etc. ?
The Reformation slogan was “Sola Fide” (Martin Luther, John Calvin): “We are justified by faith alone.”
Roman Catholics said, “No, we are justified by faith and works.” The Roman Catholic Church cites James 2:24, “not by faith alone”.
Keys to interpreting James 2:14-26 properly:
1. one should not isolate verse 24 and the phrase, “not by faith alone” all by itself because it ignores the context of this paragraph, the book of James, and the rest of the NT.
2. In context, in James 2:14, emphasis is on a person “saying”, “claiming” that they have faith. “Can that kind of faith save him?” .
3. James 2:21 What is he alluding to here? Answer: Genesis 22
4. James 2:23 What is he quoting here? Answer: Genesis 15:6. This is what Paul quotes in Galatians 3:6 and Romans 4:3
5. Monotheism is not enough to save. James 2:19. The demons also believe that God is one. In Genesis 15:1-6, Abraham’s faith was not just in “one God”; but his faith was in the one true God and His promise to send someone from his own body to be “the seed” who would destroy Satan (Genesis 3:15) and be a blessing to all nations. Genesis 12:3, 18:18, 22:18. (see Galatians 3:16; and Genesis 26:4-5)
6. Key: The order of events in the life of Abraham: Faith came first, then obedience. Genesis 12:4 (Hebrews 11:8), Genesis 15:6; then Genesis 22 (good works, obedience).
7. The word “justified” in James 2:21 and 2:24, based on how it is used in context, “justified” has a different meaning than in Galatians and Romans. Here is means, “proved right”, “vindicated”, “confirmed”, “tested and approved”. In Romans and Galatians and James 2:23, because he is quoting Genesis 15:6, which is also quoted in Romans 4 and Galatians 3; it means “declared righteous” or “imputed or reckoned righteous”, but in verses 21 and 24, it means “proven to be justified”. The same word is used this way in Matthew 11:19, “wisdom is proved right by her deeds” NIV: “Wisdom is proved right by her actions”. Luke 7:35 “Wisdom is vindicated by all her children”. NIV: “Wisdom is proved right by her children.”
– this is also confirmed by “you see” in verse 2 and “you see” in verse 24. Good works are things we see. The evidence of a truly saved person is change, repentance, sorrow over sin, confession, good works, fruits. Galatians 5:19-22. fruit = evidence. Deeds of the flesh = evidence of practices of those who do not have the Holy Spirit.
8. Interpret in the light of other Scriptures: Romans 1:16-17, 3:9-28, 4:1-8, 5:1-11, Galatians 1:8-9, 2:16-21, Galatians chapter 3, Philippians 3:9
9. Interpret according to theological consistency: God has one mind and no contradictions in His mind, or His word, therefore there are no contradictions in the Bible.
10. So, the Bible teaches that we are justified by faith alone, but that faith is such a kind of faith so as not to stay alone; it results in good works, obedience, a heart of humility, repentance, changes, good fruits, new attitudes, love for people, hunger for God and His word, love for the church, hatred for sin; confession, and a godly sorrow when a true believer does sin.
11. True faith is a living, active faith. James 2:26, Galatians 5:6 “faith working through love”. God has “poured His love first into believer’s heart through the Holy Spirit”. Romans 5:5; We love because He first loved us” – 1 John 4:10-19. We are able to love, because He first loved us. There is not contradiction between Paul in Galatians and Romans and James in 2:14-26.
I enjoyed listening to this because I really do miss Rod Bennett as a friend when we were Baptists together in our local church, and those days of great discussions and friendship over good classical movies with a meaningful message and quality acting, etc., Star Wars, movies like: It’s A Wonderful Life & Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, the original Star Trek, monsters, wax museums, C. S. Lewis, the Beatles, etc. We used to discuss a lot of Francis Schaeffer also, although I don’t know what Rod thinks of Schaeffer anymore, as Schaeffer was a committed Presbyterian Protestant.
At the beginning Albert K. Little said something like, “if you are looking for a church, why not look into the Catholic Church, the church that Christ founded?” the problem with that is that the catholic little c church of the first 5 centuries is a completely different thing than the Roman Catholic Church of today with veneration of icons, Purgatory, Indulgences, Papacy, over-exalting Mary, praying to statues and icons of Mary, adding works to justification, Transubstantiation, ex opere operato priestly powers, requiring ministers to be celibate, etc.
In my Review of Rod’s book, Four Witnesses (Part 1), on page 87, Rod stops the quote of 1 Clement 44 as precisely the exact place that would show that overseers/bishops (Greek: επισκοποι – episcopoi ) is the same office as elders (Greek: πρεσβυτεροι – presbuteroi). This is clear in the earlier New Testament writings, such as Acts 14:23; 20:17, 28; Titus 1:5-7; 1 Timothy 3, 1 Peter 5:1-5, Philippians 1:1. Even other very early non-canonical writings confirm this, such as the Didache 15, and Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, chapter 26, no. 5. See the context beginning at 1 Clement 42 – two offices – “bishops and deacons”. bishops are the same as elders/presbyters. (the way the early church interpreted Isaiah 60:17)
“Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. ” 1 Clement 44
Rod, used a different translation than the one above, but stopped the quote here on page 87 of his book. You can look it up at the standard early church fathers set at ccel dot org web-site or new advent. The quote continues:
“For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that ye have removed some men of excellent behavior from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honor. “ 1 Clement 44 .
Rod admitted to me (when we debated these issues from 1996 to 2004) that I was right to point that out and that he would sincerely revise that section in a future edition of “Four Witnesses”. I have not seen that happen yet.
Back to this video with “the Cordial Catholic”: The way Rod framed his first argument – mixing doctrinal unity with episcopal form of church government – was a bad mixing of different categories. Including the Anglican Church in the “doctrinal unity” with RCC, EO, OO (Copts and Jacobite Syrian Church, Armenia Apostolic Church, Ethiopian O. Church, etc.) was a strange “bait and switch” argument from episcopal form of church government to doctrinal unity – since the true Anglicans (conservative African Anglicans and the Australian Anglicans, and the Anglican Church in North America = those that still hold to the Reformation, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, and that LGBTQ is sin, etc.) ie, NOT the church of England and most western forms, the American Episcopal church – those are apostate churches.
But those Anglicans that still hold to Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, and the 39 Articles – that Sola Fide is Biblical, Transubstantiation is unBiblical and wrong; the Pope is not Biblical, etc. Even the liberal Anglicans are not unified doctrinally with the Roman Catholic Church. Rod also included the Coptic Church in “doctrinal unity” with Rome. To include the Copts (the Oriental Orthodox) in “doctrinal unity” with you is not true. They don’t believe in the 2 natures of Jesus – that Jesus is one Person with 2 natures. They are Miaphysite (or Mono-physite) = Jesus has ONE Nature, and divine one – the human nature is swallowed up and sub-summed in the Divine nature. On that issue, we orthodox conservative Protestants are in unity more with you than with the Copts. you also left out the Assyrian Church of the East – broke from the “catholic / orthodox” church in 431 AD. The Copts and the other Oriental Orthodox broke from the “catholic / orthodox” church in 451 AD. So the claim that “everyone said the same thing” (alluding to 1 Corinthians 1:10 and John 17) until 1054 is false!
Another thing is the elephant in the room – Pope Francis. You made a big deal about contraception and the year 1930. Yet your current Pope has changed several things in spirit and emphasis; and at least one thing formally – especially the Catholic Catechism (a formal document) to say that the death penalty is always wrong and sin – this is a massive contradiction to the RCC’s position in the past. So why did YOUR church change? Conservative Protestants still believe the death penalty is valid for properly adjudicated court process and finding of guilt for first degree murder, proven rape, serial murderers, etc. Your so called “infallible Pope” has said many things that seem like he things homosexuality is not so bad. (in the interview when he said, “Who am I to judge?”) and he continues to allow priests such as James Martin go on supporting the LGBTQ agenda. Also, he told a boy about his atheist father who died, that his atheist / unbelieving father went to heaven even though he did not believe in Christ, because he wanted his children to be baptized. You think water baptism is magic and can be applied to a father without faith in Christ? Your church does not “say the same thing” as you did for centuries! Vatican 2 & post Vatican 2 theology and apologetic methods are a massive contradiction. Vatican 2 really changed the anathemas of Trent against all of us believing Protestants to “separated brethren”. At the same time, they claim they did not change. The official anathemas have never been changed, but in modern parlance Vatican 2 and post Vatican theology claims and apologetic methods give the impressing that those Anathemas have been changed. For centuries, atheists and Muslims without Christ were clearly understood as condemned and going to hell; yet post Vatican 2 theology has been saying for the past 50 + years that people without Christ can be saved. Even your Catechism says this. (paragraphs 841 and 847). Shameful. “no salvation outside of the Church” has been changed. Why did you change on those issues, and we have not?
The original church structure was a plurality of elders for each church – see Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5-7. Bishops (overseers / episcopoi) and elders (presbuteroi) are the same church office. see also Acts 20:17 (elders), with v. 28 – “the Holy Spirit has made you elders overseers / bishops – shepherd (pastor) the flock of God. & Philippians 1:1 (bishops and deacons – 2 offices, not 3) Even 1 Clement (96 AD) demonstrates this (1 Clement 42-44). The Didache also confirms this. Rod even admitted this to me when we debated for 8 years from 1996 to 2004 and he told he was going to revise/ update his section on Clement in his book, “Four Witnesses”. Ignatius comes after the Scriptures and 1 Clement and the Didache. Jerome confirms this in his commentary on Titus 1:5-7 – he admits that bishops and elders are the same office, but that later, for practical reasons (custom, and to root out heresy), one of them was put over the rest introducing the “mono-episcopacy”. but that 2nd century practice does not mean the church “went totally off the rails” as Rod likes to say all the time. The church is not infallible; only Scripture is infallible. the church can make mistakes and has made mistakes. So someone found a scrap of a parchment that scholars debate over the date of (from 250 into the 400s and 500s AD) – the so called “Sub tuum praesidium” prayer to Mary. That someone wrote that down and prayed that does not mean it was right or widespread. A very careful Roman Catholic guy that I have friendly debates with (Allan Ruhl) admitted that it was only after 431 AD that all the Marian piety and practice really took off after that point. Those practices and piety and later dogmas are truly barnacles on the ship that must be scrapped off. (statues and icons of her, praying to her, the dogma of 787 on veneration of icons, and the dogmas of Mary of 1854 and 1950) The perpetual virginity of Mary did not become official dogma until 553 at the second council of Constantinople. Barnacles that have been added over the centuries – the above about Mary, the Papacy, Transubstantiation (early church is not that – Spiritual presence IS real presence), works as adding to justification rather than proof of justification (Trent 1545-1563 and beyond), Purgatory (slow process from Augustine to over-emphasis by Gregory around 600 to the full flowering of the doctrine in the Middle Ages, indulgences, Apocrypha as canonical (Trent), etc. None of those things are early church. (33-around 451 or 500) Although some ideas about some aspects of them existed earlier, they were not universal or Biblical.
Jerome lived from 342-420 AD, and translated the Bible into the Latin Vulgate, and was one of the most famous early church scholars. “A presbyter, therefore, is the same as a bishop, and before dissensions were introduced into religion by the instigation of the devil, and it was said among the peoples, ‘I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, and I of Cephas,’ Churches were governed by a common council of presbyters; afterwards, when everyone thought that those whom he had baptised were his own, and not Christ’s, it was decreed in the whole world that one chosen out of the presbyters should be placed over the rest, and to whom all care of the Church should belong, that the seeds of schisms might be plucked up. Whosoever thinks that there is no proof from Scripture, but that this is my opinion, that a presbyter and bishop are the same, and that one is a title of age, the other of office, let him read the words of the apostle to the Philippians, saying, ‘Paul and Timotheus, servants of Christ to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi with the bishops and deacons.’” (Jerome, Commentariorum In Epistolam Ad Titum, “Commentary on the Epistle to Titus”, PL 26:562-563) And: “Therefore, as we have shown, among the ancients presbyters were the same as bishops; but by degrees, that the plants of dissension might be rooted up, all responsibility was transferred to one person. Therefore, as the presbyters know that it is by the custom of the Church that they are to be subject to him who is placed over them so let the bishops know that they are above presbyters rather by custom than by Divine appointment, and ought to rule the Church in common, following the example of Moses, who, when he alone had power to preside over the people Israel, chose seventy, with the assistance of whom he might judge the people. We see therefore what kind of presbyter or bishop should be ordained.” (Jerome, Commentariorum In Epistolam Ad Titum, PL 26:563)
Lord willing, I may comment on other things in this video later.
Answer to Roman Catholics who claim the OT Apocrypha books are “canonical”. They call them “Deutero-canonicals”
The canon already existed by 96 AD, because the 27 books of the NT were “God-breathed” as soon as written. The discernment process is what they are talking about. The church discerned the canon; not decided upon the canon. The church is not over the canon. The church did not create the canon! The Scriptures rule over the church. The apocrypha books of OT was in debate from Jerome’s time until Trent. Jerome knew they were not canonical or inspired. Athanasius basically agreed – those are not in the canon – but they were good for reading and studying. Even Cardinal Cajetan, in 1532 (who interviewed & examined Luther for the Pope in 1518) agreed that “all decisions about the canon are to be reduced to the judgment of Jerome”. (my paraphrase) “For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. ” Cardinal Cajetan, Interviews Luther in 1518. See the fuller quote at end of my article and at the link to James Swan’s article.
“5. Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John. 6. These are 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. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me” 7. But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings.”
Athanasius, Festal Letter 39, 5-7, 367 AD
Athanasius, Festal Letter 39, 367 AD Notice about the 27 NT books in paragraph 6 :
“in these ALONE” = Sola Scriptura in general principle
paragraph 7 – the apocypha (deuterocanonical) books are not canon. Yes, I realize he included Esther in that group. The point is there was real debate from Jerome’s time until Trent. But Jerome and Athanasius and others represent the early church’s better scholarship on the OT canon.
Quote from Cardinal Cajetan from James Swan’s excellent research:
https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/01/cajetan-on-canon-hes-ok-bcause-hes-one.html
From James Swan’s excellent article:
In 1532, Cajetan wrote his Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament (dedicated to Pope Clement VII ). In this work, Cajetan leaves out the entirety of the Apocrypha since he did not consider it to be Canonical:
“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”
Cardinal Cajetan, 1532
This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a “helmeted” introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon.
Jerome, Preface to Samuel and Kings (around 400 AD)
https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206/npnf206.vii.iii.iv.html
In his commentary on Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus, Jerome states:
“As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two Volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church.”
Jerome, commentary on Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus (Around 400 AD)
This is common knowledge. I am surprised Roman Catholics don’t do their homework on this issue. He translated the Deuterocanonicals out of respect for the bishop of Rome, and because at the time they were considered “good to read” for piety, information, etc. BUT not “God-breathed” and not inspired, therefore, NOT canon.
Other Thoughts: When the Roman Catholic says “yeah, but the Church existed before the Bible therefore the Church gave us the Bible”
The church existed before the 27 books of the NT were written – true. The first books were written around 45-49 AD – James, Mark, and Galatians. But that does not mean that the Scriptures “came from the Church” as you put it. The Holy Spirit inspired the apostles (Matthew, John, Peter, Paul) and their helpers (Mark, Luke, author of Hebrews, whether Barnabas or Luke for Paul or Silas or Apollos; James, Jude) 2 Peter 1:19-21 – the Holy Spirit inspired and guided the authors. The written text is “God-breathed” 2 Tim. 3:16. Do not go beyond the Scriptures – 1 Cor. 4:6 – the apostles (and their helpers communicated apostolic doctrine) wrote the Scriptures. Jesus prayed: “O Father, Your Word You gave to Me, and I have given them Your Word” John 17:8 the Scriptures did not come about by a church or bishops or council – the apostles & those under apostolic authority with them wrote the Scriptures.
When the Roman Catholic says, “the Bible did not come with a table of contents” –
A Roman Catholic responded to me: “First. the bible did not come with a table of contents, so how did the Christians of the first century know what books or letters were inspired?”
It is true that there is no “table of contents” because they are all originally rolled up individual scrolls in the first century, sent to specific places or specific people. There was no such thing as a book (with a binding) in the first or second century. Ephesians, Mark, Galatians, James, John, Romans, etc. – they were individual rolled up scrolls. Only later did people start flattening them out and tying them together or attaching them with other books/letters – the codex form came later. It is not necessary to have a table contents – that only happened after they were all collected together under one “book cover”. The Christians could discern what was true from false. Irenaeus ( writing 180-202 AD) and Tertullian (writing 190-220) discerned true Scriptures vs. false writings and false gospels. They both quoted from and cited as Scripture 22 our of the 27. Origen cited all 27 NT books as Holy Scripture around 250, over 100 years before Athanasius’ famous Festal Letter 39, which has the same 27 books of NT and Athanasius wrote: “In these ALONE is the teaching of godliness” = Sola Scriptura in principle
ای خداوند طریق خود را به من بیاموز
تا
در راستی تو شالک شوم
دل مرا واحد ساز
تا
از نام تو ترسان باشم
مزامیر ۱۱:۸۶
(Above = Psalm 86:11 in Farsi, or Persian, the language of Iran, parts of Afghanistan) I preached this in Farsi to a group of about 30 Iranians in early September, 2012)
Psalm 86:11 “O Lord, teach me Your way in order that I may walk in Your truth; make my heart one in order that I may fear Your name.”
– the prayer of a true believer wants to learn God’s way and have his/her heart made one and pure in order to walk in holiness and the fear of the Lord.
Psalm 86
A Prayer of David
David – “a man after God’s own heart” – 1 Samuel 13:14
a. seeks God – Psalm 27:4, 8
b. spends time in God’s word – Ps. 1, 19, 145:3-5 – meditation
in God’s word; worship, prayer
c. Confessed his own sin – Psalm 51, 32, 38
d. Respected Saul’s office
e. Had a servant spirit
f. Faith in God for the glory of God – I Samuel 17 – against Goliath
The Prayer of a True Believer
1. A True Believer realizes his own need, and confesses it in prayer to God.
(verse 1 – poor, needy, weak, afflicted) – Luke 5:32; Romans 5:6-10. Just as we had to realize we were sinners and helpless and ungodly and that we were “poor in spirit” in order to be saved; so also even after justification the true believer confesses every day His need of grace and power for holiness and help, as he/she is also needy and desperate and poor. The gospel reminds us of our need for Christ daily to grow. “Just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, so also now walk in Him . . . ” Colossians 2:6
2. A True Believer calls out to God in prayer; lifts up his soul to God in prayer.
(verses 3-4 – “I lift up my soul to You”; “all the day”)
all day long
in difficult circumstances
in times of persecution (v. 14-17)
3. A True Believer worships God and reminds himself of God’s character in prayer.
verse 5 – “for You are good” and
You are “ready to forgive”
verse 7 – “You answer prayer”
verse 10 – “You are great and do wondrous deeds”
verse 13 – “You are love and have mercy – your love and mercy to me is great.”
verse 15 – You are merciful and gracious ; you are slow to anger. But you have real just anger against sin – see Romans 5:9; John 3:36; Ephesians 2:1-3; Romans 1:18
Regarding God’s Wrath – Hell is real. (Mark 9:48) For those who have yet to repent and trust in Christ as Savior and Lord, hell is a reality and justice.
The true Believer Reminds himself of how God has worked in the past – v. 17 – and in payer, reminds God of His past faithfulness.
4. The true believer wants to learn God’s way and sincerely asks God to teach him in order to live holy and fear God and glorify God. (v. 11-12)
Teach me Your way – willingness to learn; submissive, open
“The Way of the Lord” means one must read and study and meditate in God’s word in order to learn the way of the Lord.
A True believer prays that and loves the Bible, the Word, doctrine, learning, sound theology. He doesn’t pray verse 11 and at the same time avoid the Bible. He opens the Bible daily and prays, “teach me Your way O Lord”
“The way of the Lord” is that Jesus is the only way to God – John 14:6
“The way of the Lord” is with the people of God – church – 1 Timothy 3:14-15; Hebrews 10:24-25
“The Way of the Lord” is in accepting the circumstances He puts us in. I Thessalonians 5:18; Ephesians 5:20
purpose – “to walk in truth” – to act and do truth; to apply truth to live and actions, not just knowing truth as head knowledge.
and
to fear Your name – the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge (Proverbs 1:7) beginning of wisdom (9:10 – knowing God, the Holy One; “the fear of the Lord is to hate evil” ( Proverbs 8:13)
to fear and respect God’s name means to treat His name as holy –
We were taught to pray constantly – “May Your name be treated as holy” – Matthew 6:9-10
Prayer: “May Your name be treated as holy O God, and start with me in my heart – may I treat Your name as holy by my thoughts and actions and words and reactions and life.
In other words, to live holy
2 Cor. 7:1 – “Therefore, having these promises, let us cleanse ourselves of all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.”
I Peter 1:15-17 – Be holy, as I am holy; live in fear of the Lord during your stay on this earth.
Romans 12:1-2
Hebrews 12:14 – without holiness, no one will see the Lord
Numbers 20:7-12 – Moses didn’t fear God or treat His name holy; didn’t glorify God by speaking to the rock.
Deuteronomy 32:51 – why Moses was not allowed into the promised land.
Leviticus 10:1-3 – Nadab and Abihu didn’t honor God or treat Him as holy; so God killed them.
I Peter 3:14-15 ( Isaiah 8:12-13) – We should fear God more than fearing man or people or what they will think of us if we live holy and godly and witness in the power of the Holy Spirit.
5. A true believer recognizes God’s heart and plan to save people from all the nations. (Psalm 86:9)
(see also Psalm 67, 87, 96, 47, Genesis 12:1-3; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14; 49:10; Isaiah 42:6; 49:6, Revelation 5:9; 15:4, Matthew 28:18-20; Romans 15:20-21, and many others!) Some from all the nations will be converted from their false religions and sin, and redeemed by the blood of the lamb and be turned into worshipers of the true God.
Gavin Ortlund does an excellent job of showing how the dogma of the Bodily Assumption of Mary is wrong and not early in church history, and, in 1950, for the Pope to make it a dogma on pain of anathema (eternally condemned) is very offensive to all Christians. This is one of the clear doctrinal heresies of the Roman Catholic Church. Even the Eastern Orthodox churches believe this doctrine, but not as a dogma. But even that is very lacking in Patristic evidence in the early centuries of church history.
μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με διδάσκοντες διδασκαλίας ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων
“And in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrine the commandments of men” Mark 7:7
ἀφέντες τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ κρατεῖτε τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων
“leaving/abandoning the commandment of God, you are holding onto the traditions of men”
Mark 7:8
The Aorist participle of “leaving”/ “neglecting” / “abandoning” (aphentes- αφεντες, from aphiaemi αφιημι ) seems to be contrasted with the present active verb of “holding onto” ( κρατειτε )- because they are so focused on teaching as doctrine, the commandments of men (verse 7), or they are so focused on holding onto their own man-made traditions (8b), it caused them to neglect, abandon, leave the commandment of God (the word of God, the Scriptures). Or, it could be an adverbial participle of means or manner, modifying the way they are holding onto the traditions of man – “by abandoning” or “by neglecting” . . . “you are holding onto”. Or it could be a causal participle, “because you neglected the commandment of God, you are holding onto the traditions of man”. Or it could be a temporal participle: “while neglecting the commandment of God” or “after neglecting the commandment of God”. Any of these three fit the context. This is exactly what the church started doing little by little in history.
It is interesting to me that the word for “leaving” (“abandoning” or “neglecting”) is also the word used in Revelation 2:4 – “you have left your first love”
ἀλλὰ ἔχω κατὰ σοῦ ὅτι τὴν ἀγάπην σου τὴν πρώτην ἀφῆκες “But I have this against you, that you have left your first love”
and
Matthew 23:23 – “you have neglected the weightier provisions of the law . . . “
Dr. Plummer pointed out in the video that this word, aphiaemi / αφιημι – has a wide range of meaning, many times, in context, it means “to forgive” sins, and other times “to divorce”, but you can see the idea of “leaving”, “abandoning”, “neglecting”, “forsaking” in the basic concept.
This is what the Roman Catholic Church did in history, by clinging to man-man traditions and holding onto them, they neglected and abandoned important doctrines such as justification by faith alone; and emphasized Mary too much and exalted her too much, and created doctrines such as Purgatory; and said that bread and wine turns into the body and blood of Jesus by the words of a RC priest. They emphasized and clung to external works and relics and penances and pilgrimages, and clinging to those things caused them to not see the main issues. Justification by faith alone was there all along in the Bible, and hinted at by some early church fathers, but it was left behind and neglected by their emphasis on external works, focus on non-Biblical things about Mary, statues, priests, penances, relics, etc.
Some Roman Catholics like to say that Protestants treat “tradition as a dirty word” or “always negative” and some (far too many) Evangelicals have done that; but that should not be and everyone should be able to handle the passages that speak of “traditions” in a positive way, since they are the true apostolic traditions.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
“But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you rom the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. 14 It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.” 2 Thessalonians 2:13-15
I have never understood why former Evangelicals who have converted to Rome say that they could not explain or handle verse 15. As in the following in Scott Hahn’s testimony of how he just melted into goo when the question was posed to him about 2 Thessalonians 2:15: (to see where this is, scroll down to the paragraph with the heading “Teacher at a Presbyterian Seminary”) ( As I recall, a lot of the Surprised by Truth (edited by Patrick Madrid) testimonies also told of how they were unprepared to deal with that verse.)
Then he turned the tables on me. The students were supposed to ask him a question or two. He said, “Can I first ask you a question, Professor Hahn? You know how Luther really had two slogans, not just sola fide, but the second slogan he used to revolt against Rome was sola Scriptura, the Bible alone. My question is, ‘Where does the Bible teach that?'”
I looked at him with a blank stare. I could feel sweat coming to my forehead. I used to take pride in asking my professors the most stumping questions, but I never heard this one before. And so I heard myself say words that I had sworn I’d never speak; I said, “John, what a dumb question.” He was not intimidated. He look at me and said, “Give me a dumb answer.” I said, “All right, I’ll try.” I just began to wing it. I said, “Well, Timothy 3:16 is the key: ‘All Scripture is inspired of God and profitable for correction, for training and righteousness, for reproof that the man of God may be completely equipped for every good work….'” He said, “Wait a second, that only says that Scripture is inspired and profitable; it doesn’t say ONLY Scripture is inspired or even better, only Scripture’s profitable for those things. We need other things like prayer,” and then he said, “What about 2 Thessalonians 2:15?” I said, “What’s that again?” He said, “Well, there Paul tells the Thessalonians that they have to hold fast, they have to cling to the traditions that Paul has taught them either in writing or by word of mouth.” Whoa! I wasn’t ready. I said, “Well, let’s move on with the questions and answers; I’ll deal with this next week. Let’s go on.”
I don’t think they realized the panic I was in. When I drove home that night, I was just staring up to the heavens asking God, why have I never heard that question? Why have I never found an answer?
Aside for failing to distinguish between 1 or 2 Timothy, it is amazing to me, that he could not handle this, when one looks at the context of verses 13 and 14; and the date and historical background of when 2 Thessalonians was written.
1. The historical context of when the Thessalonians epistles were written. (50-52 AD) Obviously, at this point, the only other letters that Paul has written are Galatians (48-49 AD) and 1 Thessalonians (50 AD), so it seems obvious that the apostle was preaching and teaching content that will be later included in letters such as Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1-2 Timothy, etc. There is no evidence at all that the apostle taught anything that Roman Catholics claim he may have, RC traditions like Mary as a perpetual virgin, or purgatory, or priests as a NT office, or indulgences, or the Papacy, or the Immaculate Conception of Mary, or Transubstantiation, external penances, relics, praying to Mary. No; it is obvious that Paul means was essential doctrine that will be later in the rest of Scripture. There is no evidence that the apostles taught any of those things that Roman Catholics developed centuries later. They read their own traditions back into the word “tradition”.
2. The context of the verse within the paragraph. Verse 14 identifies the traditions of verse 15 as the gospel (“our gospel”), and verse 13 shows the doctrines of election, salvation, “sanctification by the Spirit”, “faith in the truth” as part of the gospel.
2 Thessalonians 3:6
This verse points to the context of the teachings in verses 7-14, and what Paul already taught them in 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12 and 5:14.
1 Corinthians 11:2 – same principle here; 1 Corinthians is early also, around 55 AD, so the same principle goes, and by the rest of the content of the whole letter of 1 Corinthians, especially in the rest of chapter 11 and 15, but not excluding any of the letter. Paul considers his teaching and letters as spiritual truths (1 Corinthians 2:12-13) that he is passing on/delivering/handing over = “traditioning” to them. Since they have written questions about issues that were raised after he taught them (see 1 Cor. 7:1); and he will also write another letter to them (2 Corinthians, which may have as part of it embedded in it, the same content as the “painful letter” about church discipline mentioned in 2 Corinthians 7:8 and 7:12 and possibly with 2 Corinthians 2:2, or it may also refer to 1 Corinthians 5 about church disciple), (or it may be a lost letter); it seems obvious the traditions are basic gospel issues and teachings. These essential teachings will all be included in writing, that will eventually all be finished by 96 AD. All Scripture is written down by either 70 AD or 96 AD. Also, the context is on the content of what he writes to them in chapter 11.
1 Corinthians 15:3 has the verbal form of “tradition”, “to deliver”, which is also used in Jude 3 – “the faith once for all delivered to the saints”. It seems obvious that the context of 1 Corinthians 15 is about gospel essentials (which agrees with 2 Thessalonians 2:13-15, and that Jude 3 shows that all the truths of the faith necessary for the saints was already delivered once for all. This, along with Jesus’ promise that when the Holy Spirit comes, He would lead the apostles into all the truth (John 16:12-13) and bring to their remembrance everything (John 14:26); it is reasonable to assume that all the truths needed would be written down.
It seems to me easy to see, when 2 Timothy 3:16 says that “all Scripture is God-breathed”, that whatever is God-breathed or inspired is revelation from God, and when that revelation is written Scripture; and since it is God-breathed, is also “canon”, since “canon” meant “principle”, “law”, “criterion”, “standard”, before it meant “a specific list of books” recognized / discerned as “God-breathed”.
As Dr. White has said many times, and James Swan in an article below,
“The canon list is not revelation, it’s an artifact of revelation.”
This means it is physical evidence and a result of revelation, a proof that revelation happened in history, since all 27 books were first individual scrolls in the first century, and each one was God-breathed Scripture, the list is merely the “footprint” or evidence or product of them all together.
Scripture is sufficient to equip the man of God in the church for “every good work” (2 Timothy 3:17; verse 17 is important to include), for ministry and teaching and counseling people (rebuking, correcting, training). Paul assumes that the “man of God” is a man like Timothy who has already been qualified to be an elder/pastor/teacher/overseer in the local church (see the whole letters of 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus). Things like the local church (1 Timothy 3:14-16), teaching, being an elder/pastor/teacher, a man of God, a man of prayer, qualified, are assumed in the whole context of the whole letters of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. The fact that Paul quoted gospels with law in 1 Timothy 5:18 as Scripture, and that Peter wrote that all of Paul’s letters are Scripture (2 Peter 3:16), along with the “once for all” of Jude 3, rounds things out as logical and reasonable to assume that all things that were needed for the church were written down in Scripture. 2 Timothy 3:15 is about the OT only, but 2 Timothy 3:16 expands it to “all Scripture”, including by principle, all of the NT books, even those written in the future.
Colossians 2:8 and 2:20-23 are also negative on man-made traditions. They also point to man-made traditions, (as Mark 7 and Matthew 15 do), philosophy, and the “elementary principles of this world” (see with Galatians 4:9-11) – these things seem to point the things that Roman Catholicism emphasizes – external rituals and laws, asceticism, rites and things that humans can do to make themselves feel religious – like visiting graves and praying to the dead, kissing relics, and the legalisms of adding things to faith as being necessary to do in order to merit finally that one may be justified before God in the future.
Those gospel essentials or essential doctrines are what Irenaeus (180-200 AD), Tertullian (190-220 AD), Origen (250 AD), and Athanasius (297-373 AD) refer to when they explain what “the tradition of the apostles” or “the faith” or “the preaching” is to their readers in the centuries that follow. When they explicate what the tradition is, it never includes any of the things that Roman Catholics read back into it. They are the same basic content as the early creeds, such as the Apostles Creed and the Nicean Creed. More on that later, Lord willing.
See Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10:1 to 1:11:1
and 1:22:1
and 3:4:2.
Tertullian, Presciption Against Heretics, 13:1-6
Against Praxeas 2:1-2
Origen, On First Principles, 1. preface. 2-8
Athanasius, To Serapion, Concering the Holy Spirit Against the Tropici Heretics, Book 1, 28-32
This work, unforuntately, is not available at the http://www.ccel.org or http://www.newadvent.org site.
But the others are there for all to see and read.
Apologetics and Agape 