I often have debates on Twitter with a reformed Baptist named Ken Temple. He often comments on this blog as well. It’s all in good fun. One thing that he has pointed out is that the Catholic Church went apostate during the Council of Trent. This is because the doctrine of Sola Fide was officially condemned at this ecumenical council.
Temple is correct. Justification by faith alone was condemned at the Council of Trent but the truth is Sola Fide was condemned over a thousand years before at the Council of Constantinople. All Christians are familiar with the Council of Nicaea. This was the first ecumenical council. It produced a creed that was treasured by the Church. Even Protestants look at this council with respect.
What less people know is that this creed was updated at the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD and this was accepted by the Church. It was accepted by the entire Church even before the early Christological schisms such as the Nestorians and the Monophysites. When people refer to the Nicene Creed, they typically refer to the creed from Constantinople.
Regardless, this creed became the standard for all apostolic churches. This creed contains the phrase:
We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.
Now, the question for Temple and those Protestants who believe that Sola Fide is the only acceptable doctrine is simple. How was the Church not apostate in the 4th century as opposed to the 16th century? Sola Fide is directly condemned at Trent but it’s indirectly condemned via endorsement of baptismal regeneration in this Creed.
I mean, let’s be honest. Most Protestants like Ken Temple, James White and others would say that the 4th century Church wasn’t the Catholic Church as we know it today. They would say that it came centuries later. Regardless of that issue, they have to admit that the Church was apostate long before the “Roman Church” comes on the scene. It was officially apostate in 381 AD.
Now, was it okay before then? Was the church kosher in 380 or 379 AD? Was everything fine and dandy in the gospel department? Well, not really. The creed of Constantinople didn’t come in a vacuum. It was just reflecting what the bishops of the fourth century that had just crushed the Arian crisis believed. In fact, based on all of the Church history I’ve read, no one stood up in this council to protest this line. No one stood up and said that we’re justified by faith alone in Christ, and baptism has nothing to do with it. No one at this council said that baptism was an external symbol for a person who has already been saved by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone. None of that.
On these basic facts, Temple should admit that the external Church has been officially apostate not since Trent but since Constantinople in 381 AD and if he’s honest a lot earlier unofficially. After all the idea that baptism remits sins wasn’t invented in 381 AD. Please share your thoughts below.
Hi Allan,
J. N. D. Kelly points out in his book, “Early Christian Creeds”, chapter 10, pages 296-331 that the part about “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins” is absent from 381 AD to 451 AD (Chalcedon) records; and that only in letter of Gregory Nazianzus (Epistle 102), he mentions that the Council of 381 supplemented the part about the Holy Spirit to the original Nicene Creed of 325 AD, but as far as we know, the other additions to the original Nicene Creed were absent from recorded history from 381-451 AD. The first place we get the records of the 381 AD creed are not until 451 AD.
“The third and most impression objection is the seemingly absolute silence regarding a Constantinopolitan Creed which apparently reigned from 381 to 451.” (Kelly, ibid, page 307)
See also the info on the letter of Gregory of Nazianzus on page 307.
“the silence about C [the Constinopolitan Creed] between 381 to 451 is a puzzling problem . . . ” (p. 322)
Even so, getting that phrase (“one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”) wrong in meaning does not mean that the entire church became apostate at the time. ( 381 or 451 AD) The phrase seems to come from Acts 2:38, but there are various good ways to understand that, in harmony with the many passages that teach that forgiveness of sins is on the basis of faith in Christ, true faith meaning of course initial repentance. (Acts 13:38-39; Luke 24:46-47; Acts 15:8-9; Acts 16:31; Acts 17:30-31)
Based on exegesis and the uncertainty of formal condemnation of Sola Fide between 381 to Trent, it seems to me to be to hasty to claim that we Protestants would agree that the whole church completely and formally apostatized in 381 AD. It still stands that that did not happen until Trent in 1545-1563 (I will have to look up the formal exact date of the condemnation of justification by faith alone.)
For a good article on Acts 2:38, see Sam Storms on Acts 2:38. I will give the link in a future comment, because usually a post with more than one link is considered spam, and I want to first include the link on “Between Orange and Trent” below.
“forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you” (Acts 13:38)
“everyone who believes is justified / freed from everything which you could not be justified / freed by the law of Moses ” (Acts 13:39)
“cleansing their hearts by faith” (Acts 15:9)
From the time of Theodosius the Great, 380-392 AD to the Council of Orange 529 AD, there are other issues that come together in the greater church world in the west, Sacral church, infant baptism becoming the norm, ex opere operato sacerdotal priestly powers to confer grace, and especially, combined with the debate on free will, Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism (Augustine vs. those southern French monks who objected to his doctrine of the bondage of the will and predestination – one of them, namely John Cassian, and others.
see canon 13 of the Council of Orange that claims that baptism frees / heals the recipient of the bondage of the will to sin.
This also the time of the beginnings of the state church (sacralism) and also ex opere operato (that by doing the work of the ceremony, the “sacrament” has inherent power to confer / cause grace, if the form is done properly.
The Council of Orange in 529 AD says that the sinful will that is in bondage to sin is freed by baptism, so that the person can then be able to chose rightly. This is clearly false. This combined with infant baptism, sets up an entire culture of external religion and thinking that doing the motions of religion brings grace (baptism, penance, Eucharist, etc.) (see my article below with the quotes)
I need to update some of the links, but I wrote on “Between Orange and Trent” several years ago.
As 2 Protestant historical theologians demonstrated (see in my article below), Semi-Pelagianism was condemned at Orange, but came back around “in a roundabout way” by the time of Trent.
In chapter 7, entitled “Merit and Grace”, R. C. Sproul discusses the issues of merit and grace, Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism, the Council of Orange in 529 AD and the council of Trent (1545-1463), which seems to affirm semi-Pelagianism.
“Rome has repeatedly been accused of condemning semi-Pelagianism at Orange [in 529 AD] but embracing it anew at Trent. Herman Bavinck held that “although semi-Pelagianism had been condemned by Rome, it reappeared in a ‘roundabout way’”. G. C. Berkouwer observed:
“Between Orange and Trent lies a long process of development, namely, scholasticism, with its elaboration of the doctrine of the meritoriousness of good works, and the Roman system of penitence . . . “
Bavinck and Berkouwer are cited by Sproul in Faith Alone, pages 140-141.
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/06/between-orange-and-trent.html
Other articles on baptismal regeneration and sacramentalism are linked to within my article “Between Orange and Trent”, but here is the one on Acts 2:38.
https://www.samstorms.org/all-articles/post/acts-2:38/
There are also articles on John 3:5 and Titus 3:5.
The article on baptismal regeneration by James White – the link is broken, as also to the article to the Council of Orange, so I need to find and update those.
You’ve said a lot. What do you want me to respond to because I sure as heck am not responding to all of that. So what’s your ace in the hole?
You can pick something, but it hangs together in church history.
381-451 AD – 529 AD (Orange) was not a formal apostasy in the same way that 1545-1563 was.
But baptismal regeneration along with ex opere operato priestly powers, with the sacral church and infant baptism all together in a nexus of problems that eclipsed the heart of the gospel.
The Council of Orange officially condemned semi-Pelagianism, (but claimed that baptism frees the bondage of the will – it does not) and furthermore, from 529 to the Reformation, it entered back in through the state church, infant baptism, baptism regeneration, and ex opere operato sacramentalism. The development of Purgatory from 600s onward and Transubstantiation (1215 – Trent) also contributed to this – so at Trent, the RC became a false church formally.
Okay,
I’ll agree with you that at the time, the council of 381 had little impact. It wasn’t given near the attention that Nicaea had. It only became authoritative at Chalcedon. Btw, Constantinople 2 in 553 AD was similar in its limited impact at the time. If you read the 4th and 5th century accounts of Church history, Nicaea was always the biggest council by far, no contest. Chalcedon was a distant second.
“381-451 AD – 529 AD (Orange) was not a formal apostasy in the same way that 1545-1563 was.”
Well you have to essentially say that because the timing works out better for you. If the apostasy was 381 or 451 then you have over 1,000 years of no gospel and Matthew 16 violated. Still though, that’s what you’re stuck with. The Creed of Constantinople whether it was affirmed in 381 or 451 is equally damaging to Sola Fide as Trent.
Again, that era (381 to 451 and onto to Orange in 529 AD) is not a formal heresy and there is not such thing as “no gospel” when the Scriptures were there and God’s Spirit can convert people who read or hear at least the fundamental truths, say of 1 Corinthians 15:1-9; Romans chapters 3-5, etc.
confusion over Acts 2:38 and its meaning and the development of it at 451 to 529 AD does not make for a total apostasy. That still does not happen until Trent, 1545-1563)
But it is the forms, ceremonies, statues, icons, buildings, external trappings that hide or eclipse the gospel, for thinking that doing the form is what saves, rather than internal heart repentance and faith in Christ (Mark 1:15) – but those things do nothing to hurt Jesus’ promise in Matthew 16:18.
Matthew 16:13-18 has nothing to do with a bishop in Rome or ex opere operato powers, etc.
Jesus is saying that the “gates of Hades” (death) will not overpower “the Church” = (true believers that Christ purchased with His blood – Rev. 5:9; 7:9; Ephesians 5:25; Acts 20:28, 1 Cor. 6:19-20.
True believers are protected by the power of God so that the second death (hell) does not overpower them.
Revelation 20:6, 15
“the second death (hades, then thrown into hell, the lake of fire) has no power over them”
We all die physically, but the second death is judgement into hades and then into hell, the lake of fire.
Matthew 16:18 is only saying that spiritual death / second death / hades / hell, will not overpower true believers.
Protestants have more foundation in Peter’s confession because we go back to actual content of his faith and confession (and it’s harmony with the rest of the NT writings), rather than centuries later developed ideas that then anachronistically claim that the dogmas that were proclaimed in history, whether “529 or 553 (PVM) or “1215, or 1302, or 1545-1563 or 1870 or 1950” – those things are in seed form inside of Peter’s faith – a ridiculous claim.
Ken,
If you want to debate, stick to one topic at a time. If you throw out a cluster I’m going to stop responding. It’s up to you.
If you want to debate, stick to one topic at a time. If you throw out a cluster I’m going to stop responding. It’s up to you.
Dave Armstrong made that same argument, but they all kind of hang together like Spaghetti and meal balls with all the ingredients and spices into one “thing” / entity.
This shows that we can be “deep in history”, better than RCs and John Henry Newman’s assertion / claim / “dictum” that Rome C. apologists use, is proven false.
Of course you want to separate them out and take one at a time, because a Roman Catholic apologetic cannot deal with the “cluster” of issues that Protestants have with a fallible historical church that caused confusion from 451 AD (not the Christology of 2 natures of Christ, but other things – that infant baptism done in the right form actually causes grace and regeneration to happen) and 529 AD (Council of Orange) to the Council of Trent, etc.
Denial of the heart of the gospel at the Council of Trent
priests
ex opere operato
baptismal regeneration
thinking that doing a form of eternal physical piety somehow brings grace down from heaven
Purgatory
Infant baptism combined with baptismal regeneration and combined with State church / church roles / citizenship
Marian piety, doctrines, dogma
Transubstantiation
Papal authority developed over centuries, then claims of infallibility in 1870 and then reading that back into Matthew 16:18
Maybe try to prove that Acts 2:38 and the corresponding line in the expanded creed doesn’t teach that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins?
Regarding me not being able to handle your cluster. I would turn it around and say that you simply can’t handle the fact that the Church prior to 451 or 529 didn’t have the Gospel. When I mean Gospel I mean what you define as the Gospel. Just man up and admit they’re all in hell. I’m so happy I don’t have your dilemma. Also, your list or doctrines aren’t hard to prove from scripture or tradition either.
No; there were many believers in the first 500 years and Protestants who know church history do not condemn the early church or fathers and we have great respect for:
Ignatius
Irenaeus
Tertullian
Athanasius
Cyprian
Augustine
Jerome,
the Cappadocian fathers
Perfection of doctrine does not save. No, they are not in hell.
True Faith in Christ saves completely.
“cleansing their hearts by faith” – Acts 15:9
Baptism and church membership and continuing in discipleship is the RESULT of true conversion, not the cause or condition of salvation.
So, no they are not in hell.
We can take them “as is” and realize they were great in many ways and they are not infallible and may be wrong in some areas.
I agree with you that they’re not in hell. However, according to your worldview, they are. Btw, I know many Protestants who openly admit that they are. Augustine on this list is laughable. I could give numerous examples of where he has a false Gospel – by your standards of course. Remember that all of these people (post Nicaea) accepted Canon 18 at Nicaea. Look it up.
about Acts 2:38
Verse 41 is the key – water baptism & being connected to other believers in a local church is the result of true faith & repentance,
“received his word” = faith and repentance
41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls
there are too many other verses that say that forgiveness is on the basis of faith in Christ and repentance.
Luke 24:46-47
John 5:24
Acts 13:38-39
Acts 16:31
Since we have no clear record of that phrase “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins” that demonstrates it was there in 381 AD, it seems it was added in 451 AD.
It is just a matter of choosing the wrong proof-text for the creed, a wrong interpretation of all the Biblical data. Putting all the relevant verses together, repentance and faith in Christ alone brings forgiveness / justification (Romans 4:5; 5:1) and baptism and church membership are results of that, not pre-conditions or causes.
From 451 Ad, Chalcedon, to 529, the Council of Orange – the debate was over semi-Pelagianism vs. Augustine’s doctrine of Grace. (which the Reformation recovered)
Other issues such as 1. state church and 2. infant baptism and 3. ex opere operato priestly powers were soldified during this era. They all came together to form a 4 knotted entity. 4. water baptism causing forgiveness of sins and causing regeneration
The all hang together in church history and related to one another.
Yes, they receive the word then they’re baptized for the forgiveness of sins.
“Since we have no clear record of that phrase “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins” that demonstrates it was there in 381 AD, it seems it was added in 451 AD.
It is just a matter of choosing the wrong proof-text for the creed, a wrong interpretation of all the Biblical data.”
Long discussion but I conceded it wasn’t ecumenical until 451 anyways. So 451 is the apostasy date I guess.
“Putting all the relevant verses together, repentance and faith in Christ alone brings forgiveness / justification (Romans 4:5; 5:1) and baptism and church membership are results of that, not pre-conditions or causes.”
Unknown in scripture and the first 1500 years of the Church.
“From 451 Ad, Chalcedon, to 529, the Council of Orange – the debate was over semi-Pelagianism vs. Augustine’s doctrine of Grace. (which the Reformation recovered)”
The council of Orange teaches baptismal regeneration in many areas. Read Canon 5. It’s a false council if you believe in Calvinism.
Your last portion is a mini scattergun but I want to respond to one thing first – state church.
Protestants started state churches, in other words when the state took over the Church. The separation of Church and state from Constantine to the Investiture controversy in the 11th century and after that were undone when the princes and monarchs implemented Protestant churches to justify their looting operation. The only reason Luther didn’t end up like Savonarola is he was being used as a pawn in a state sponsored looting operation and if Luther ever had second thoughts about his “gospel” the princes would have killed him.
Infant baptism. All of the early Protestants believed in infant baptism and considered baptists like you heretics. Both of us would have had the same fate in Calvin’s Geneva or Zwingli’s Zurich. Obviously for different beliefs but both for heresy.
Ex opere…okay, you tell me how it’s done. Let me know why we should chuck Augustine and go with the Donatists on this one.
“water baptism causing forgiveness of sins and causing regeneration” – taught all over the scripture and every church father that elaborates on baptism. Not a single Church father believed baptism was an external ceremony for an already regenerated person. Not one. Also, the Council of Orange teaches baptismal regeneration since you seem to like referencing it.
All of those four issues are the historic church teaching and the only way to make sense of scripture. Unless of course you want to be a Donatist. You already accept Arian ecclesiology so I guess Donatism isn’t that hard at this point.
Augustine on this list is laughable.
How so?
It was his writings on grace and predestination, along with returning to the Greek NT, prepared by Erasmus and encouraged by Luther’s superior Johan Von Staupitz, that revealed or caused them to rediscover the truth that was there in the NT, but was eclipsed over by the traditions of man (Matthew 15; Mark 7) – the heart of the gospel to the Reformers. (Galatians 1:6-9; chapters 2, 3, 4; 5; Romans 1, 3, 4, 5, Philippians 3:9; Ephesians 2:8-9; Acts 13:38-39; 16:31; John 5:24; 3:16-18; 11:25; 6:37-45; 20:30-31, etc.)
B. B. Warfield was right:
“For the Reformation, inwardly considered, was just the ultimate triumph of Augustine’s doctrine of grace over Augustine’s doctrine of the Church. (Warfield, Calvin and Augustine, p. 322)
by “doctrine of the Church” = ceremonies, sacraments, bishops, buildings, external rites, bishops, ex opere operato thinking – what the RC emphasizes for centuries over the reality of heart faith in Christ alone and the invisible grace of God working in the heart.
“Putting all the relevant verses together, repentance and faith in Christ alone brings forgiveness / justification (Romans 4:5; 5:1) and baptism and church membership are results of that, not pre-conditions or causes.”
Your comment:
Unknown in scripture and the first 1500 years of the Church.
wrong. It is there in Scripture clearly. See all the verses I put up in earlier post.
The NT never teaches that words confessed over a baby and water getting them wet CAUSES them to get forgiveness of sins, or causes regeneration. Nor an adult – baptism and church membership naturally follow repentance and faith as results and proof that one has true faith in the first place. The forgiveness comes at the moment of conversion / faith & repentance; but someone who claims to have faith, and then says, “But I refuse to be baptised or join a Biblical church” – that indicates that the faith is not real or it is a temporary attitude of pride – a true believer will seek to follow the Lord in baptism – Matthew 28:19 and Matthew 3:13-17, etc.
This is the root of the problem.
Even Justin Martyr (in that famous passage in his First Apology 61, On Baptism) is clear that only after a person believes in Christ, do they then get baptized. There has to be adult understanding that they are a sinner so that they can repent and believe.
There are no babies there getting wet or having magic words said over them.
Colossians 2:11-12 clearly says that we get baptized when there is faith. “faith in the working of God, who raised Jesus from the dead”.
Also, the Council of Orange teaches baptismal regeneration since you seem to like referencing it.
Yes, that was wrong. canon 13 is wrong and unBiblical.
see my article, “Between Orange and Trent”
The Council of Orange in 529 AD
Against Semi-Pelagianism
(but canon 13 and subsequent centuries from Orange to Trent made another form of semi-Pelagianism in the outward performance of sacramentalism, the main thing about Roman Catholicism; even to this day.
CANON 13. Concerning the restoration of free will. The freedom of will that was destroyed in the first man can be restored only by the grace of baptism, for what is lost can be returned only by the one who was able to give it. Hence the Truth itself declares: “So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed” (John 8:36). (says nothing about water baptism setting the will free)
Correction: It, the freedom of the will, can be only restored by the grace of God that He gives in repentance and faith in Christ. Acts 16:14; John 6:37-45, 65; Romans 6:22; Ezekiel 36:26-27; I Corinthians 12:13 – we are baptized by one Spirit into the body of Christ – water baptism is the outward symbol of the internal repentance and trust in Christ.
Do you think Augustine was right to take that phrase in Luke 14:23 “compel them to come it” – and apply it to the force of the sword of the government, in order to try and force the Donatists back into the “catholic church”?
He took a phrase out of context. “compel” in Jesus’ parable does not mean “government force by the sword”, etc. – it means “persuade them”, “convince them”, “invite them with passion”, in the context of the whole parable – Luke 14:15-24.
Here is where the nexus in Church history comes together to form a knot:
1. infant baptism 2. State church force 3. baptismal regeneration and forgiveness of sins by words of the priest with ex opere operato powers.
This is why the time between Orange and Trent was a confusing time, which Wycliff, Hus, Luther, Calvin, and the Reformation afterward (baptists and free churches) recovered from the confusion.
I don’t think the local authority rescuing Luther from execution after the Deity of Worms was from day 1 intended to be “a state looting operation” – although some of that is true, later. The state church is wrong, but historically, it was inherited by the Reformation from centuries of man-made tradition since Theodosius made Christianity the State religion and they used cruel methods vs. Donatists, and vs. Copts and other Miaphysites in order to force them to the Chalcedonian Creed (which I agree with the Christology, but disagree with the harsh methods that created bitterness in the old Byzantine Levant areas, that were later taken over by Islam. Sad tragedy.
The fact is, the Popes in Rome (particularly at the time Leo X) were looting the peoples of Germany and England and other lands by false doctrines and practices of selling indulgences and Purgatory – manipulating people to buy their salvation and dead loved ones out of Purgatory – a hideous doctrine. (and building St. Peter’s cathedral in Rome, etc.)
I’ve noticed that in everything between the Donatists and Augustine, you side with the Donatists. Whether it’s theology that you conveniently left out in this post or politics which you now bring up.
Between Orange and Trent wasn’t a confusing time. I accept all of it(save the odd heretic) and you reject all of it. You also reject everything pre-Orange save Christology. You’ll notice that Wycliffe and Huss didn’t come in 700 or 800 but were right before the reformation when Nominalism and rationalism was kicking in. Btw, Wycliffe’s theology was the polar opposite of Nominalism, still wrong though.
Historians to this day don’t know why Frederick saved Luther. Only theories exist. Still, the princes used Luther as a ticket to wealth. See my article on this where I quote the actual sources.
Please don’t conflate what rogue princes did in the 16th century and the rich history from Constantine to Gregory VII and to right up until the reformation. When the princes banned Catholicism and replaced it with invented “churches” to steal Church property that was a violation of the separation between church and state. None of that was inherited.
“The fact is, the Popes in Rome (particularly at the time Leo X) were looting the peoples of Germany and England and other lands by false doctrines and practices of selling indulgences and Purgatory – manipulating people to buy their salvation and dead loved ones out of Purgatory – a hideous doctrine. (and building St. Peter’s cathedral in Rome, etc.)”
This is about a grade 1 version of what things were like in the 16th century. When young Lutheran kids do Luther plays they use this as a script. No one who has studied the “reformation” in depth believes this. I don’t doubt that there were massive abuses but abuses are to be reformed, not used as an excuse for spawning a legion of groups. The funniest example is that you brought up England. England is the classic example that this “abuse” narrative of the reformation was wrong. England literally took the worst abuses of the medieval period and prolonged them for hundreds of years. Have you heard of the Annates? All bishops had to pay their first years’ salary to the Pope or to some other Church office. Did Henry VIII abolish this? No, he just made the C of E bishops pay the Annates to him(or whoever the monarch was)!!! Please do some actual research. Maybe try watching Ryan Grant’s videos. He specializes in the German and English “reformation”.
It was confusing to the Biblical gospel.
The combination of the things I already mentioned, then adding the centuries of Purgatory, treasury of merit, praying to Mary, icons and statues, praying to dead saints, Transubstantiation, etc. – they were DOCTRINALLY confusing times.
“I accept them”, etc.
of course we accept it as history, whatever is accurate is history; but if the doctrines are not Biblical, then they are wrong.
Henry VIII was a jerk, no doubt.
Your RC church abused it’s own power and never had authority that it claimed for himself. It is a joke. No respect for the Popes and their arrogant claims.
The only good bishop of Rome was Leo 1, because of his Tome on the 2 natures of Christ. He was a bishop of one area; not a “bishop over all other bishops”. Cyprian and 86 other bishops and the EO are right on this issue.
Boniface VIII in 1302, Unam Sanctum
“Every living creature must submit to the Pope for salvation”
Pius IX to others and lord Acton – “I am the tradition!”
Almost the most arrogant and unBiblical statements ever uttered.
“The only good bishop of Rome was Leo 1, because of his Tome on the 2 natures of Christ.”
My next post will be a response to this.
“He was a bishop of one area; not a “bishop over all other bishops”.”
Not according to his papal legate Paschasinus. At Chalcedon Paschasinus said:
“We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city, which is the head of all the churches”
But I guess a baptist in 2020 knows more about him than his own legate.
“Cyprian and 86 other bishops and the EO are right on this issue.”
Are you ever going to respond to any of the points I made about this argument like later saints saying he was out of his mind? Or are you just going to keep repeating this argument without dealing with counter-arguments. You wouldn’t make a good scholastic. Should I expect an answer eventually?
I should also point out that while the EO don’t believe in a bishop above other bishops, they don’t agree with the Cyprian model and that is why their apologists don’t use this. A few amateur internet apologists who were baptists 5 minutes ago might but no real seasoned EO apologists do because it’s not their model. They think certain bishops have authority over others, for example the Patriarch of Moscow can remove bishops from smaller lesser dioceses in Russia, etc.
Canon 5 of the Council of Orange was wrong also. I had to go back and re-read that. It is amazing that the claim is made that water baptism causes regeneration, and yet the verses they quote say nothing about water baptism, but only about grace and faith.
CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism — if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, “And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6). And again, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.
Yes because everyone knew baptism regenerates so he didn’t have to go into it, the same way the creed spends more time on the Son than the Father. The doctrine of the Father was known but the doctrine of the Son needed explaining. It doesn’t mean that the Son was more important than the Father. They’re equal since they’re both equal parts of the Trinity with each other and the Holy Spirit.
You look at Orange the same way you look at Acts 2. You’ve already made up your mind on Sola Fide so everything must conform to it yet neither scripture nor Orange teach Sola Fide. Also, it’s faith and baptism, not faith vs. baptism. The people of Orange never saw a dichotomy and neither does the Catholic Church.
Btw, you’re the one who brought up Orange as an example of proto-Protestantism in the early church without reading it.
Hi Allan, you wrote in response to Ken :
“When the princes banned Catholicism and replaced it with invented “churches” to steal Church property that was a violation of the separation between church and state. None of that was inherited.”
Some EO apologists would argue that the RC accomplished the same thing but the other way around : instead of absorbing the Church into the State like the Protestant princes did, they absorbed the State into the Church. They would say that “separation between church and state” became a joke (for the Western Church at least) when the Popes deposed the Byzantine emperor and replaced him with a Western one more suitable to their wishes (committing perjury in the process, violating the oath of fidelity to the Emperor they had to make like everyone else).
If the Pope can depose or replace the Emperor, what’s left of separation ?
Can you elaborate? When did the Pope depose a Byzantine Emperor? What oath do you speak of?
Great article. But if you were arguing with a Lutheran or Anglican, this argument wouldn’t work. They affirm both baptismal regeneration and sola fide.