GK Chesterton on Protestant Logic

[thereselittleflower]

So would you say that the fullness of the truth refers to the fullness of the completed revelation which you believe resides in the scriptures and in Catholic tradition?

If only the church's leadership had acted in more accordance with the teachings of the gospel during the inquisition times, I would have been more inclined to accept the authority of its teachings.

There is a great deal of myth that surrounds the inquistion created and fabricated by the Church's enemies during the Reformation.

Much of it has been debunked and exposed as fraud, exagerration, and fabrication.

The BBC, about 10 years ago, created a documnetary doing just this.

In fact, when the Spanish Inquisition was critically and objectively examined, it was found that most of what we have been led to believe through popularist history was ctually false.

In fact, what they discovered was the Spanish Inquisition was ahead of its time in the ways of judicially protecting human rights, care of prisonors, fairness of treatement and rendering justice.

In fact, the Spanish Inquisition's jails were a model for others to follow for many years to come. They were clean, offered clean water, decent food, clothing and bedding, and a systemtatic and effective hearing process with legal representation for the accused.

In fact, people caught in the secular system were in danger of dying before ever reached trial, which might be never, from bad food and water, disease, etc.

In fact, many would try to force their case to be transferred to the inquisitional system because they were assured of a fair trial in addition to the benefits above. They would get out of the death trap of the secular system.

In addition to all this, the tales of execution, burning at the stake and torture are fabrications and/or exagerations.

The truth is, the protestant inquistions killed and brutally tortured 100 to 1000 times more than all of the Catholic inquisitions put together.

So, if the Spanish Inquisition is holding you back, then there is no real reason for it to hold you back any longer.


The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition

"The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition," a 1994 BBC/A&E production, .........

The Inquisition had a secular character, although the crime was heresy. Inquisitors did not have to be clerics, but they did have to be lawyers. The investigation was rule-based and carefully kept in check. And most significantly, historians have declared fraudulent a supposed Inquisition document claiming the genocide of millions of heretics.


What is documented is that 3000 to 5000 people died during the Inquisition's 350 year history. Also documented are the "Acts of Faith," public sentencings of heretics in town squares. But the grand myth of thought control by sinister fiends has been debunked by the archival evidence. The inquisitors enjoyed a powerful position in the towns, but it was one constantly jostled by other power brokers. In the outlying areas, they were understaffed - in those days it was nearly impossible for 1 or 2 inquisitors to cover the thousand-mile territory allotted to each team. In the outlying areas no one cared and no one spoke to them. As the program documents, the 3,000 to 5,000 documented executions of the Inquisition pale in comparison to the 150,000 documented witch burnings elsewhere in Europe over the same centuries.

http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/1112-96/article4.html
​

And that's just the witch burnings in protestant areas . . . . that is only the beginning . . . .

 

[thereselittleflower]

I've already shown you your translation was inaccurate

No, you claimed it was inaccurate . . you never proved it.

 

[thereselittleflower]

This is particularly important. Notice that Irenaues said that Rome has authority, undoubtedly a controversial view but he certainly felt that way as did others at that time, but look at the reason why. Not because Peter had a specific successor but their adherence to the Apostles teachings(which we also believe as well, this is preserved in the Bible). Notice Peter AND Paul .

Sorry, I can't read posts done up in all bold red. . . . much too hard on the eyes . . . nothing there that I can see .. .

 

[thereselittleflower]

Sure but at that point they were disciples. It wasn't until later that they received authority.



I'd like to know if you think this is inaccurate.



Source


I don't mean to suggest that all Popes were evil or that we should pick them apart for all of their faults, but when the Church is led to do the wrong thing by its leader, how can we call that leadership inspired?

If God can inpsire an ASS to give His word to the prophet Balam, and Saul, His enemy, to prophecy like the prophets, then He can inspire anyone,

Inspiration has nothing to do with pecaability, ie sinfulness.

Peter was inspired to write scripture. He also sinned when he acted contrary to Church teaching and quit eatng and living like the gentiles when the judiazing jews came to where he was. Peter acted the part of the hypocrit.

That didn't stop God from inspiriting him to right scripture.

The point is, the Papacy is not a person, it is an office, and as with other offices, its validity and power and authority does not depend on the personal sinlessness of the one who occupies it.

If a very sinful person occupies the office of the president, even if he is a traitor, that does not invalidate the office of the presidency or its power and authority.

So the authority and power of the office continues regardless of the worthiness of the one occupying it.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Glad to hear that. Then quit quoting the writings of Men outside the BIble.'/quote]

Where is the authority to tell us what to do?

If you don't like us quoting men outside the bible, there is nothing forcing you to read them.

If we were to stop quoting men outside the bible we would have to put aside all right use of reason and logic that God gave us.

Surely you are not suggesting we do such a thing, are you?

Btw, doesn't the RCC believe they are in the Millennium now

Edit to add: what does Chesterton say about that?

Which is it LLOJ?

Do you want us to stop quoting men outside the bible or not?

Seems like even you realize the error in making such a requirement that we do.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Repeating things over and over does NOT make them anymore convincing, at least not anyone with an open mind.

Then why do you do so, especially when you offer no real valid evidence?

 

[thereselittleflower]

It's hard to open anyones mind when they don't even believe in their own Protestant historian scholars.

Protestant Historical scholar Harnack says about Rome,

Ignatius is our first external witness in regard to the Roman Church in 110AD. After making allowances for exaggeration of language in his letter to the Romans, it remains clear that Ignatius assigns a de facto primacy to the Roman Church among its sister churches and that he knew of an energetic and habitual activity of this church in protecting and instructing other churches. The Church and Infallibility pg. 140 (c. 1954
Taking into account the phenomenon of development, the notion of primacy needs to be established first. The Church of Rome enjoyed a Primacy over the other Churches from the earliest period for which we have records with indications that this priority was not an innovation. Dr. Harnack claimed that "The Roman Church from the end of the first century possessed a de facto primacy in Christendom" (Mission und Ausbreitung pg. 398). When even a liberal Protestant scholar such as Dr. Harnack makes such a concession as this, how can we argue about this issue?

Ignatius is our first external witness in regard to the Roman Church in 110AD. After making allowances for exaggeration of language in his letter to the Romans, it remains clear that Ignatius assigns a de facto primacy to the Roman Church among its sister churches and that he knew of an energetic and habitual activity of this church in protecting and instructing other churches. The Church and Infallibility pg. 140 (c. 1954

Protestant scholar John Lawson’s work The Biblical Theology of St. Irenaeus had this to say about the Bishop of Lyons and his view of the Roman church and its primacy: ​

[W]hat church can compare with Rome? She is the life-work of the two greatest Apostles, known of all and knowing all, she is a supreme witness to the unified voice of the Church. If it is necessary for each and all to consent to the voice of the whole Church, how necessary is it for all to consent to Rome? To S. Irenaeus Rome was most certainly an authority none must question, as she cannot be imagined as ever in error. The word ‘infallible’ to some extent begs the question, for the use of it imports into the discussion the results of later definition. It is nevertheless a word which is difficult to do without. With this proviso we may say that Irenaeus regarded Rome as the very corner-stone and typification of a whole structure of ecclesiastical infallibility. The Church and Infallibility by B.C. Butler pgs. 136-137 (c. 1954​

Protestant J.B. Lightfoot Church historian scholar-- commenting on Clements letter to the Cornithians A D 90

'It may perhaps seem strange to describe this noble remonstrance as the first step towards papal dominion. And yet undoubtedly this is the case'​

St. Clement of Rome, pg 698.​

Protestant Philip Schaff states in History of the Christian Church, volume 2 (Eerdmans, 1910) ​

"Rome was the battle-field of orthodoxy and heresy, and a resort of all sects and parties. It attracted from every direction what was true and false in philosophy and religion. Ignatius rejoiced in the prospect of suffering for Christ in the centre of the world; Polycarp repaired hither to settle with Anicetus the paschal controversy; Justin Martyr presented there his defense of Christianity to the emperors, and laid down for it his life; Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian conceded to that church a position of singular pre-eminence. Rome was equally sought as a commanding position by heretics and theosophic jugglers, as Simon Magus, Valentine, Marcion, Cerdo, and a host of others. No wonder, then, that the bishops of Rome at an early date were looked upon as metropolitan pastors, and spoke and acted accordingly with an air of authority which reached far beyond their immediate diocese." (Schaff, page 157)​

On St. Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD), reckoned as the fourth Pope from St. Peter, Schaff states --​

"...it can hardly be denied that the document [Clement to the Corinthians] reveals the sense of a certain superiority over all ordinary congregations. The Roman church here, without being asked (as far as appears), gives advice, with superior administrative wisdom, to an important church in the East, dispatches messengers to her, and exhorts her to order and unity in a tone of calm dignity and authority, as the organ of God and the Holy Spirit. This is all the more surprising if St. John, as is probable, was then still living in Ephesus, which was nearer to Corinth than Rome." (Schaff, page 158)​

Simon Try not to justify your denominations existence by calumnizing the Church which Jesus Christ founded. Following the plan of the reformers. If you break from the Church of truth, what justification can you possibly show for doing so? There can be only one truth, so the only other recourse is to try to show error. If the proofs of error are not to be found, then invent some. Thus the invention becomes a lie. This is obvious by your statements above when mirrored against the Protestant historical Scholars quoted here.




​

​

)

Very well done Trento!

 

[thereselittleflower]

Do you read anything in context or just go to armstrongs cut n paste supplies for out of context quotes?


Same reason I send contributions to compassion international and worldvision because I am able to...


Yes and we call pastors shepherds when in reality there is one "true" shepherd...I fail to see any significance here and neither should anyone who reads the WHOLE piece.


Friend the papacy has NO case...It claims it was known for all ages yet even a passing glance shows it's not the case...in the first 170 years after Christ there is NO evidence save a couple out of context cut n pastes.

At least my friend Jackthecatholic is intellectually honest enough to admit it as a developing doctrine.

Ignoring facts in evidene does not make one's claims credible . . . . . .

 

[thereselittleflower]

I've disputed every one of your false assertions Trento.
I won't waste my time on it anymore. If these guys beleive as you try to suggest they'd be catholic.

Not much of a rebuttal . . . . .

 

[thereselittleflower]

We've read these same couple of snippets several times before.

Posting and reposting the same material, taken out of context and misinterpreted despite explanations given to you, may make you feel better, but it does nothing for establishing the truth about the early church.

OK?

Not much of a rebuttal there either . . .

 

[thereselittleflower]

Trento if you desire to quote these guys...Link them so they can be read in context, these snippets have been proven to be out of context so many times you are not considered a historically reliable poster. Do it for your own credibility I believ you'll learn something.

not much of a rebuttal there either . . . just unsupported claims . . . .

 

[thereselittleflower]

Bye Bye.

http://christianforums.com/t7192552-teachings-of-men.html

Again?

 

[thereselittleflower]

Basing your work on one or two snippets taken out of context will get you an "F" on any term paper in any university. This is not research. It doesn't establish anything.

I can easily respond with a piece written by a former Catholic priest blasting his former church and even call him a scholar, if you wish. All of that proves nothing, whether or not you realize it. There's not even any attempt on your part to defend the proposition you think you are offering when it is pointed out that you got the meaning wrong. You just repost it without explanation.



Posting a lineage of bishops of Rome and the words of some church council are not, I hate to tell you, "biblical support."



For "Biblical support," you have to post 1) Bible passages, and 2) some exegesis.

Polemical argument . . not much of a rebuttal . . still waiting for something of substance . . . .

 

[thereselittleflower]

I actually prefer "CHRIST-IAN" logic.

http://christianforums.com/t7192552-teachings-of-men.html

You're back . .. that was quick!

 

[thereselittleflower]

Maybe you should seek with an open heart and mind.
I wouldn't have anyone do anything...I present facts the Holy Spirit changes hearts and minds. I defend the truth and expose falsehoods!

I haven't seen much in the way of facts, just mostly unsupported, or poorly supported claims in face of the evidence to the contrary . . . .

 

[thereselittleflower]

In fact, he probably believes neither. The opposite of church councils is not a heretic who also comes along centuries after Christ...but the Word of God, the Bible.

If you are really hoping to debunk your opponent, you have to address the real issues, even if they are not as much fun as sarcasm.

just more polemics, nothing much of a rebuttal of substance at all . . . . .

 

[thereselittleflower]

No. The council APPROVED the books that were already in use.

Oh? Then why didn't they approve also the other books that were already in use?

Why did they leave those books out even though they were already in use?

 

[thereselittleflower]

First of all Speaking of his own teachers Clement writes.

'But they, safeguarding the TRUE tradition of the blessed teachin, which comes straight from the Apostles Peter, James, John and Paul and transmitted from father to son have come down to us with the help of God to deposit in us those acenstral and apostolic seeds'
Stromata 1,11

Right after Clement repudiates the private interpretation of the Gnostics he writes:

'For US...having grown old in the Scriptures, PRESERVING the Apostolic and ecclesiastical correctness of doctrine, living a life according to the Gospel, is led by the Lord to discover the proofs from the Law and the prophets which he seeks.'
ibid 7,104


Secondly what did he believe what was scripture at the time before the infallible ruling by council?


He lived in the late 100 and did most of his writings in the early 200s . If you study the Fathers and Divided into time periods, here is what the Fathers thought:


160 a.d.- 250 a.d.
Summary - Awareness of a Canon begins toward the end of the 2nd century. Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria were the first to use the phrase "New Testament" in the 2nd and 3rd century.

Gospels - Accepted

Acts - Gradually accepted


Pauline Writings - Accepted with certain exceptions



2 Timothy - Rejected by Clement



Philemon - Rejected by Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, and Clement

Hebrews - Not considered canonical until the 4th century in the West. Disputed by Origen. First accepted by Clement.


James - Not canonical. First mentioned and disputed by Origen. Rejected by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement


1 Peter - Gradual acceptance. First accepted by Irenaeus and Clement

2 Peter - Not canonical. First mentioned and disputed by Origen. Rejected by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement

1 John - Gradual acceptance. First accepted by Irenaeus, and rejected by Origen.


2 John - Not canonical. Disputed by Origen and rejected by Tertullian and Clement



3 John - Not canonical. Disputed by Origen and rejected by Tertullian and Clement



Jude - Gradual acceptance. Accepted by Clement and rejected by Origen.


Revelation - Gradual acceptance. First accepted by Clement and rejected by the Barococcio Canon of 206


Shepherd of Hermas - Accepted by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and Clement



The Didache - Accepted by Clement



The Apocalypse of Peter - accepted by Clement



The Acts of Paul - Accepted by Clement, and appears in Greek, Latin, Syriac, Armenian, and Arabic translations



Gospel of Hebrews - Accepted by Clement. Accepted by Muratorian Canon of 190
which excluded Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and included The Apocaplypse of Peter and Wisdom of Solomon.


So let's see Simon



Rejected by Clement2 Timothy , James, 2 Peter , 2 John ,3 John.



Then he accepted-- The Apocalypse of Peter ,The Acts of Paul , Gospel of Hebrews

Looks like the scriptures neede a council to make a final decision

Yep those books were already in use by the time of those councils, so it seems rather clear that the councils did more than simply give their stamp of approval to books "already in use". . . . .

 

[thereselittleflower]

Yeah, the Roman illusion is that proves Roman papal supremacy, when in fact, Clement, who was a disciple of Paul, and ordained by Paul, was very well known and intimate with the Corinthian church, having served there with Paul.

So, naturally, Clement would be concerned about those whom he knew and was intimate with.

But using your illogic, Irenaeus was the supreme ruler because Irenaeus stepped in and rebuked both Anicetus and Victor when they tried to bring charges against Polycarp and Polycrates during the Quartodeciman controversy, and forced both Anicetus and Victor to repent of their arrogance. Ireneaus spoke and the matter was settled.

No evidence, just polemics and unsubstantianted claims . . . .

 

[thereselittleflower]

That is not my logic.

You must fabricate arguments for me that you can defeat because you have no response to the arguments I actually make!

Yeah, I noticed that too . . . those are called "strawman" and we sure see a lot of those in response to our well thought out logical and resaoned arguments.

Just part of the terrain I guess.

If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger

Clement is claiming to speak for God, as Peter did.

Deny the truth if you think it is wise.

And he is claiming it is no small sin (that's what transgression means for those who oppose Catholicism)if they disobey him.

We sin when we disobey God appointed authority, so this obviously means he is God's appointed authority we are to obey, sitting in Peter's chair.