Bottners List

[rnmomof7]

As a Presbyterian that has a great deal of respect for Bottner

I was wondering how all of you see Bottner's list.

The OBOB forum has a thread that says it dispels his work and attempts to justify the error in the dating.

See it here.

http://www.christianforums.com/t922262-the-boettner-list-fact-or-fiction.html


For those that are not familiar with the list, Bottner dates the growth of the ritual and doctrinal changes and addictions to Catholic doctrine.

1 . Prayers for the dead . …………-------------------……300 A.D.
2. Making the sign of the cross ………………………… …300 A.D.
3. Veneration of angels & dead saints …………---------…….375 A.D.
4. Use of images in worship………………………………… . 375 A.D.
5. The Mass as a daily celebration……………………………… 394 A.D.
6 Beginning of the exaltation of Mary; the term, "Mother of God" applied a Council of Ephesus……………. .----------------------------------------- 431 A.D.
7 Extreme Unction (Last Rites)……………………………… ..526 A.D.
8. Doctrine of Purgatory-Gregory 1…………………………… .593 A.D..
9. Prayers to Mary & dead saints ……………………………… .600 A.D.
10. Worship of cross, images & relics ……………………… … 786 A.D.
11 Canonization of dead saints ………………………………… ..995 A.D.
12. Celibacy of priesthood …………………………………… …1079 A.D.
13. The Rosary ……………………………………………… … 1090 A.D.
14. Indulgences ……………………………………………… …..1190 A.D.
15. Transubstantiation-Innocent III …………………………… 1215 A.D.
16. Auricular Confession of sins to a priest …………………… 1215 A.D.
17. Adoration of the wafer (Host)…………………………… .. 1220 A.D.
18. Cup forbidden to the people at communion …………………..1414 A.D.
19. Purgatory proclaimed as a dogma……………………………..1439 A.D.
20. The doctrine of the Seven Sacraments confirmed …………….1439 A.D.
21 Tradition declared of equal authority with Bible by Council of Trent…………………………………………----------------… 1545 A.D.
22. Apocryphal books added to Bible ………------------……….1546 A.D.
23. Immaculate Conception of Mary……………………………….1854 A.D.
24, Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals, proclaimed by the Vatican Council ……………… 1870 A.D.
25. Assumption of the Virgin Mary (bodily ascension into heaven shortly after her death) ……………………………-----------------------------------……1950 A.D.
26. Mary proclaimed Mother of the Church……………………… 1965 A.D.


When I read the list what I see is when certain practices were made mandatory beliefs. not necessarily when the practices started .


As an example transubstantiation was not a mandatory belief until Trent .
before that time one could be a Catholic and not hold that belief ( consider that Luther rejected it and he was a monk )

Has anyone here studied the list and hold a position on it?

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

I like a lot of Boettner’s work, but this list, unless seriously qualified, is very misleading. For example #22 says “Apocryphal books added to Bible ………------------……….1546 A.D.” This is not correct.

At the Council of Trent the Roman Catholic Church OFFICIALLY declared that the Apocryphal/Deutero-canonical books were Scripture, but these books had been in the “Bible” from a very early period. St Augustine approved of them and some local councils he presided over declared them to be so in the late 4th and early 5th centuries.

The books were disputed from a very early period. Christians living near the Holy lands who were in contact with Jews tended to reject the Apocrypha and those living further from Palestine were more likely to accept the Septuagint (Greek) translation of the Old Testament which included the extra books.


There are many other statements in the list, which are correct as to the time when a belief became an “official” position of the Roman Church, but are misleading because that belief would have existed and had a large following long before it is officially sanctioned.

In Christ,
Kenith

 

[rnmomof7]

I like a lot of Boettner’s work, but this list, unless seriously qualified, is very misleading. For example #22 says “Apocryphal books added to Bible ………------------……….1546 A.D.” This is not correct.

At the Council of Trent the Roman Catholic Church OFFICIALLY declared that the Apocryphal/Deutero-canonical books were Scripture, but these books had been in the “Bible” from a very early period. St Augustine approved of them and some local councils he presided over declared them to be so in the late 4th and early 5th centuries.

The books were disputed from a very early period. Christians living near the Holy lands who were in contact with Jews tended to reject the Apocrypha and those living further from Palestine were more likely to accept the Septuagint (Greek) translation of the Old Testament which included the extra books.


There are many other statements in the list, which are correct as to the time when a belief became an “official” position of the Roman Church, but are misleading because that belief would have existed and had a large following long before it is officially sanctioned.

In Christ,
Kenith

That was my point I think.

Before that time one could call themselves catholic and deny the canonicity of the Apocrypha ( as did jerome) or transubstantiation . But once the council ruled on it it was dogma and was a mandatory belief.
I actually think that was Bottners point ??


So I thought the list with all the arguments are straw-men. There were many practices that were pagan in the early church and never made "official teaching"
Just because they predate a council does not mean that the practice was correct or a part of the church.
You can not cherry pick and say "we always did this". when you also did things that were later rejected.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

That was my point I think.

Before that time one could call themselves catholic and deny the canonicity of the Apocrypha ( as did jerome) or transubstantiation . But once the council ruled on it it was dogma and was a mandatory belief.
I actually think that was Bottners point ??


So I thought the list with all the arguments are straw-men. There were many practices that were pagan in the early church and never made "official teaching"
Just because they predate a council does not mean that the practice was correct or a part of the church.
You can not cherry pick and say "we always did this". when you also did things that were later rejected.

You are correct. Roman Catholics tend to over play the Early Churches position on many things and modern Evangelicals tend to think little or nothing of the Early Church but claim that they are following the position of the church anyway .

The early church had a good bit of theological diversity. Calvin in his response to Cardinal Sadolet's letter to the people of Geneva told the Cardinal that the Reformers were closer to the teachings of the Early Church and Calvin knew thathe Cardinal knew that that was indeed the case. But today, because of his views on the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper Calvin would have a hard time getting ordained in more than a few Presbyteries in conservative Reformed denominations .

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[reformedfan]

i read thru that list the r caths posted a while back & was struck by how often "they" (OBOB'ers) cite tradition/ councils rather than Scripture to object to Boettner's Biblical grievances.

Too bad R Caths elevate the efforts of men to the level of Scripture, but at least God knows what TULIP means

 

[rnmomof7]

i read thru that list the r caths posted a while back & was struck by how often "they" (OBOB'ers) cite tradition/ councils rather than Scripture to object to Boettner's Biblical grievances.

Too bad R Caths elevate the efforts of men to the level of Scripture, but at least God knows what TULIP means

There is a problem with that as the RC church does not accept 100% of the Church Fathers opinions.So in some ways it appears self serving .

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

There is a problem with that as the RC church does not accept 100% of the Church Fathers opinions.So in some ways it appears self serving .

The Roman Catholics do tend to be choosy about which father they quote, of course the same happens in every camp.

A good book on the doctrines and teachings of the early church is Early Christian Doctrine by J.N.D. Kelly. It is also good to read what the Fathers themselves have to say.

I think it is clear that the Modern Roman Catholic view of Tradition is not the same as that of the early Church. I think the understanding of Christ presents in the Eucharist found in the earliest Fathers is closer to that of Calvin than it is to the RCC position, but there were those who held to a physical presents early on but not as early. Sadly many Reformed people today would be shocked by Calvin's views, because they have a more Zwinglian/Baptist understanding of the Sacraments.

The books (apocryphal vs. deutero-canonical) dispute was not settled in the Catholic Church until Trent, but their apologists often make it sound as though there was never a dispute. Many Protestants argue, just as wrongly from the other side of that coin, and act as though the RCC added those books as part of the Counter Reformation. The truth is inbetween those extremes.


Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[rnmomof7]

The Roman Catholics do tend to be choosy about which father they quote, of course the same happens in every camp.

A good book on the doctrines and teachings of the early church is Early Christian Doctrine by J.N.D. Kelly. It is also good to read what the Fathers themselves have to say.

I think it is clear that the Modern Roman Catholic view of Tradition is not the same as that of the early Church. I think the understanding of Christ presents in the Eucharist is closer to that of Calvin than it is to the RCC position, but there were those who held to a physical presents early on. Sadly many Reformed people would be shocked by Calvin's views, because they have a more Zwinglian/Baptist understanding of the Sacraments.

The books (apocryphal vs. deutero-canonical) dispute was not settled in the Catholic Church until Trent, but their apologists often make it sound as though there was never a dispute. Many Protestants argue, just as wrongly from the other side of that coin, and act as though the RCC added those books as part of the Counter Reformation. The truth is inbetween those extremes.


Coram Deo,
Kenith

I have never heard that argument on the apocrypha by a protestant . (We must travel in different circles

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

I have never heard that argument on the apocrypha by a protestant . (We must travel in different circles

Augustine held that the Apocrypha was canonical, while Jerome held that they were not. They were in disbute long before Jerome and Agustine discussed them (late 4th cent.). Early Christians in contact with the Hebrew Old Testament tended to hold to what is now the Protestant position, and those who did not have contact with the Hebrew version had the Septuagint (Greek Translation) or the Old Latin Version (the pre-Jerome Latin version), which was translated from the Septuagint. These early Christians (like Augustine) tended to accept the Apocrypha as canonical.

I think Jerome's position was correct and Augustine was wrong, but the two positions existed together (without Anathemas) for almost 1,500 years. Even the Early Protestant Translations (Luther's, the Geneva and the Autherised [KJV]) all contained the Apocrypha (though seperated from the OT and NT) because they were seen as important works, even though they were not considered Canon.

I agree with Jerome and the early Protestants in their view of these extra books.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

... Sadly many Reformed people today would be shocked by Calvin's views, because they have a more Zwinglian/Baptist understanding of the Sacraments...

What was his view?

 

[StAnselm]

I was talking about the apocrypha in another thread, and did some research. The early councils (or at least, the Councils of the late 4th century) definitely accepted it - mainly because they accepted the Septuagint.

 

[StAnselm]

I agree with Cajun Huguenot about some of the items on the list being misleading - others I don't think are bad things at all. "Mass as a daily celebration" - what's wrong with that? It certainly wasn't the "mass" as Catholics think of it today, but they did celebrate the Eucharist daily in the Book of Acts.

I agree with the decision of the Council of Ephesus, but the word they use to descibe Mary is theotokos, which does not mean "Mother of God", but rather "God-bearer".

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

...I agree with the decision of the Council of Ephesus, but the word they use to descibe Mary is theotokos, which does not mean "Mother of God", but rather "God-bearer".

How are they different?

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

What was his view?

Calvin believed that Christ was truly present in the Lord's Supper and we truly partake of him in the Supper by faith. Therefore he saw Communion as a true means of Grace. I gave some examples from Calvin's pen here:Calvin and the Lord's Supper

In Christ,
Kenith

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

Calvin believed that Christ was truly present in the Lord's Supper and we truly partake of him in the Supper by faith. Therefore he saw Communion as a true means of Grace. I gave some examples from Calvin's pen here:Calvin and the Lord's Supper

In Christ,
Kenith

Thank you very much, I'm off to read that now!

In Christ -
Jeff

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

I agree with the decision of the Council of Ephesus, but the word they use to descibe Mary is theotokos, which does not mean "Mother of God", but rather "God-bearer".

The terms Mother of God and Theostokos used at the Council of Euphesus must be understood within the theological controversy that produced them. That controversy was the Nestorian cintroversy. Bishop Nestorious (who had a Antiochian as oppossed to an Alexandrian Christology) was asked to rule in whether the title Theostokos was proper for Mary. He disliked the term Theostokos (God bearer) unless the term anthropotokos (man bearing) was added with it because he thought the term Theostokos smacked of Arianism (the Son was a creature) or Apollinarianism (not fully man). He prefered Christotokos (Christ bearer).

Bishop Cyril of Alexadria accused (wrongly) Nestorius of denying the full diety of Jesus because of his dislike for theostokos. (Cyril was not totally honest in the debate).

Anyway that is part of the background (it is worth study). The term "Mother of God" is in my opinion not a big deal in the original context, but I also believe some Roman Catholics blow it way beyond that original meaning and cause it to (at best) border on idolitry.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

Your a very smart guy Kenith!!

Was Calvin one of the people who had a high view of Mary? I know Luther did, but I can't recall if Calvin did too. I don't feel like googling it

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Your a very smart guy Kenith!!

Was Calvin one of the people who had a high view of Mary? I know Luther did, but I can't recall if Calvin did too. I don't feel like googling it

I don't think Calvin objected to the term Mother of God and he did (unlike myself) believe she remained a Virgin for her whole life.

In Christ,
Kenith

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

I don't think Calvin objected to the term Mother of God and he did (unlike myself) believe she remained a Virgin for her whole life.

In Christ,
Kenith

I need to do some research on him. I'll check out those books you listed above.

Thanks!

 

[rnmomof7]

Your a very smart guy Kenith!!

Was Calvin one of the people who had a high view of Mary? I know Luther did, but I can't recall if Calvin did too. I don't feel like googling it

I hope we all hold a "high view " of her. The question is did Calvin pray to her or believe in her assumption???

That is the issue I suspect because before it was made dogma it was not as mandatory belief if you called your self Roman Catholic. That was the point of Bottners list of dates.