I enjoy listening to the late great Dr. Baucham, but he sure doesn't understand Catholicism...

Dr. Baucham

Trying to listen as I get the time. Kudos to you for crossing over and listening to VB.

Are you able to outline some of the big ideas he gets wrong?

I watched it. It's pretty standard fare for discussion the Reformation.

I'm glad he does point back to the Council of Trent because I'm not sure that's something many Roman Catholics are truly aware of and the concerns is should raise for them.

AgLiving06 said:

---

I watched it. It's pretty standard fare for discussion the Reformation.

I'm glad he does point back to the Council of Trent because I'm not sure that's something many Roman Catholics are truly aware of and the concerns is should raise for them.

---

Why should RC's have concerns about the Council of Trent?

Asking as a poorly informed Protestant.

Quote:

---

Are you able to outline some of the big ideas he gets wrong?

---

Sure - I'm not carrying a jug around that fills up with grace. The grace from the sacraments (grace is a share of divine life) sanctifies my naturalness into holiness, slowly but surely over time. I think of my stained soul as black, or dingy gray, and grace whitens it (sanctifies it). Where he got the jug from is a mystery. And he indicated, I think, that we believe grace ONLY comes through the sacraments. I don't believe that, as God is free to impart grace anytime he wants to outside of the sacraments. Regarding the sacerdotal slam on priests having authority - They got it from Jesus at the Last Supper (do THIS in memory of me), and after, when Jesus breathed on them and gave them the power to forgive sins in John 20 (2nd time in the bible God breathed on man, which signifies the Holy Spirit coming into man =.new creation). So the priests are acting under the direct authority of Jesus Christ.

Quote:

---

Why should RC's have concerns about the Council of Trent?

Asking as a poorly informed Protestant.

---

The Council of Trent was the Church''s response to the Reformation. They corrected the abuses, clarified doctrine, and put out a Catechism, which is available free on line...

Quote:

---

Trying to listen as I get the time. Kudos to you for crossing over and listening to VB.

---

My High School baseball coach, Diz Reeves, had him in as an athlete in some sport. He went to his funeral in Dallas, and turned me on to him. I love good preaching, and he certainlyhad the gift for it. But, I do disagree with his Calvinistic legalist approach to salvation, surprise surprise!

KingofHazor said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

I watched it. It's pretty standard fare for discussion the Reformation.

I'm glad he does point back to the Council of Trent because I'm not sure that's something many Roman Catholics are truly aware of and the concerns is should raise for them.

---

Why should RC's have concerns about the Council of Trent?

Asking as a poorly informed Protestant.

---

This is a protestant take, which Rome will disagree with, of course, but Trent really symbolizes the start/creation/beginning/foundation of what is the modern Roman Catholic Church.

We can examine most modern arguments and debates and see Trent lay out claims that Rome has spent the rest of its time trying to defend.

When you dig into the actual history and debates, you'll find that Roman bishops and theologians had wide ranging viewpoints and Luther really could have initially fit within that box. We debate the theology nowadays, but really, what set the world on fire was Luther daring to challenge the flaws with the Pope and the Pope's reaction.

IMHO, Dr. Baucham, who I think is a wonderful man, makes the same mistake a lot of preachers do...Talk about the 5 Solas/TULIP as being totally salvific if you believe in them WITHOUT talking about changing yourself in the area of humility, loving and forgiving your neighbor, helping the poor, etc. Personal sanctification, in other words, because of Christ taking over your will and intellect...

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Trent may be misunderstood by Catholics, but 99% of the Protestants who use it as a rebuttal to Catholics don't understand Catholicism.

Everything from the number of books in the Bible, to the efficacy of works, purgatory, the number of sacraments etc etc these same Protestants state began at the council of Trent, not were merely confirmed by the council of Trent.

These are the same people who act as if the Marian dogmas of the church are a few hundred years old, because of the ex Cathedra statements.

Councils exist to clear up confusion for the faithful, usually when a new heresy is muddling the waters. That's what they've always been used for. Trent is no different.

---

Yep, just like the Councils of Hippo & Carthage did not create the Canon, they merely cleared up the confusion for the faithful.

So basically being a catholic is akin to being an Aggie? From the outside looking in you can't understand it and from the inside out you can't explain it?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

So basically being a catholic is akin to being an Aggie? From the outside looking in you can't understand it and from the inside out you can't explain it?

---

kind of (and I know you were joking) but that's what I love about the Church, and I include the orthodox in that. The importance of the scripture cannot be overstated, BUT I think just as clearly its extremely easy to misunderstand. Every single heresy throughout our history has come from misinterpretation of scripture. The bible is chock full of allegory, symbol, parable, prophesy and seemingly conflicting statements (I'm supposed to honor my father and mother, but I'm also supposed to hate them?).

To me it doesn't make sense that the Holy Spirit would give us this book, and painstakingly guide people to discern which were "God-inspired" and which weren't, and then leave us all to our misinterpretations.

Protestants SEEM to get around this issue with saying that the Holy Spirit still guides the believers, but can't point to any actual concrete proof. This leads you with Holy hand of Risen Zion Cowboy Church claiming to be given the authentic teaching of the spirit; but "you've just gotta trust me bro".

The Catholic Church basically says the same thing, but at least has a visible hierarchy with a line to the apostles who can help clear up the confusion.

KingofHazor said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Trent may be misunderstood by Catholics, but 99% of the Protestants who use it as a rebuttal to Catholics don't understand Catholicism.

Everything from the number of books in the Bible, to the efficacy of works, purgatory, the number of sacraments etc etc these same Protestants state began at the council of Trent, not were merely confirmed by the council of Trent.

These are the same people who act as if the Marian dogmas of the church are a few hundred years old, because of the ex Cathedra statements.

Councils exist to clear up confusion for the faithful, usually when a new heresy is muddling the waters. That's what they've always been used for. Trent is no different.

---

Yep, just like the Councils of Hippo & Carthage did not create the Canon, they merely cleared up the confusion for the faithful.

---

Amen, when catholics say they "created the bible" it's shorthand for "was the instrument the holy spirit used to identify the God-inspired books"

It's kind of like saying Isaac Newton invented Gravity.

KingofHazor said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Trent may be misunderstood by Catholics, but 99% of the Protestants who use it as a rebuttal to Catholics don't understand Catholicism.

Everything from the number of books in the Bible, to the efficacy of works, purgatory, the number of sacraments etc etc these same Protestants state began at the council of Trent, not were merely confirmed by the council of Trent.

These are the same people who act as if the Marian dogmas of the church are a few hundred years old, because of the ex Cathedra statements.

Councils exist to clear up confusion for the faithful, usually when a new heresy is muddling the waters. That's what they've always been used for. Trent is no different.

---

Yep, just like the Councils of Hippo & Carthage did not create the Canon, they merely cleared up the confusion for the faithful.

---

This is historically inaccurate.

Neither make that claim and Rome itself has never made this claim.

They were local councils at best and they simply listed the books they utilized. They make no claim to establishing the council

This is the kind of retconning that goes on because of Trent.

AgLiving06 said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Trent may be misunderstood by Catholics, but 99% of the Protestants who use it as a rebuttal to Catholics don't understand Catholicism.

Everything from the number of books in the Bible, to the efficacy of works, purgatory, the number of sacraments etc etc these same Protestants state began at the council of Trent, not were merely confirmed by the council of Trent.

These are the same people who act as if the Marian dogmas of the church are a few hundred years old, because of the ex Cathedra statements.

Councils exist to clear up confusion for the faithful, usually when a new heresy is muddling the waters. That's what they've always been used for. Trent is no different.

---

Yep, just like the Councils of Hippo & Carthage did not create the Canon, they merely cleared up the confusion for the faithful.

---

This is historically inaccurate.

Neither make that claim and Rome itself has never made this claim.

They were local councils at best and they simply listed the books they utilized. They make no claim to establishing the council

This is the kind of retconning that goes on because of Trent.

---

I'm missing your point. Lots of folks on this board have claimed that the RCC/EO churches created the canon and point to those early church councils as proof.

KingofHazor said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Trent may be misunderstood by Catholics, but 99% of the Protestants who use it as a rebuttal to Catholics don't understand Catholicism.

Everything from the number of books in the Bible, to the efficacy of works, purgatory, the number of sacraments etc etc these same Protestants state began at the council of Trent, not were merely confirmed by the council of Trent.

These are the same people who act as if the Marian dogmas of the church are a few hundred years old, because of the ex Cathedra statements.

Councils exist to clear up confusion for the faithful, usually when a new heresy is muddling the waters. That's what they've always been used for. Trent is no different.

---

Yep, just like the Councils of Hippo & Carthage did not create the Canon, they merely cleared up the confusion for the faithful.

---

This is historically inaccurate.

Neither make that claim and Rome itself has never made this claim.

They were local councils at best and they simply listed the books they utilized. They make no claim to establishing the council

This is the kind of retconning that goes on because of Trent.

---

I'm missing your point. Lots of folks on this board have claimed that the RCC/EO churches created the canon and point to those early church councils as proof.

---

That folks on this board make the claim is beside the point. The entire claim that these early councils established anything is a Roman Catholic apologist's attempt to retroactively justify something that nobody with Rome actually argued for during the Reformation or afterwards. It's a truly modern claim.

None of these councils are claimed as anything more than a local council and to claim them as anything else or more is a disservice to these councils and what (little) we know.

AgLiving06 said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Trent may be misunderstood by Catholics, but 99% of the Protestants who use it as a rebuttal to Catholics don't understand Catholicism.

Everything from the number of books in the Bible, to the efficacy of works, purgatory, the number of sacraments etc etc these same Protestants state began at the council of Trent, not were merely confirmed by the council of Trent.

These are the same people who act as if the Marian dogmas of the church are a few hundred years old, because of the ex Cathedra statements.

Councils exist to clear up confusion for the faithful, usually when a new heresy is muddling the waters. That's what they've always been used for. Trent is no different.

---

Yep, just like the Councils of Hippo & Carthage did not create the Canon, they merely cleared up the confusion for the faithful.

---

This is historically inaccurate.

Neither make that claim and Rome itself has never made this claim.

They were local councils at best and they simply listed the books they utilized. They make no claim to establishing the council

This is the kind of retconning that goes on because of Trent.

---

I'm missing your point. Lots of folks on this board have claimed that the RCC/EO churches created the canon and point to those early church councils as proof.

---

That folks on this board make the claim is beside the point. The entire claim that these early councils established anything is a Roman Catholic apologist's attempt to retroactively justify something that nobody with Rome actually argued for during the Reformation or afterwards. It's a truly modern claim.

None of these councils are claimed as anything more than a local council and to claim them as anything else or more is a disservice to these councils and what (little) we know.

---

If it was just a local council, why did St Augustine send the canon to be confirmed by Rome? St Augustine was the presiding bishop of the councils in question was he not? Exercising full authority over the Church in that region?

Who would have been in Rome that could have possibly been needed to confirm something that a Bishop himself had overseen?

The Council of Rome in 382 AD, for the first time, declared the canon of the bible, all 73 books, infallibly. It had the same worldwide authority as the Council of Jerusalem did (with the Holy Spirit's approval) in Acts 15.

Thaddeus73 said:

---

The Council of Rome in 382 AD, for the first time, declared the canon of the bible, all 73 books, infallibly. It had the same worldwide authority as the Council of Jerusalem did (with the Holy Spirit's approval) in Acts 15.

---

In rebuttal, see Pope Damasus, the Council of Rome and the Canon of Scripture

Quote:

---

If it was just a local council, why did St Augustine send the canon to be confirmed by Rome?

---

He didn't.

Quote:

---

St Augustine was the presiding bishop of the councils in question was he not? Exercising full authority over the Church in that region?

---

He wasn't. He participated, but was not the presiding bishop.

Quote:

---

Who would have been in Rome that could have possibly been needed to confirm something that a Bishop himself had overseen?

---

Not applicable question because it assumes facts that are not correct.

It's very significant that the Councils of Hippo and Carthage appeared to merely confirm a canon that was already in widespread use prior to those councils. The canonical issue to be decided at the councils was not the existing canon, but whether new books should be added to that canon. Heck, the Old Latin Translation of the Bible, which included all of the books of the Canon except for 4, was extant 200 years before those councils. From the writings of 20+ church fathers, including 3 of the NT writers and Clement of Rome, it is clearly apparent that the books we consider the NT were viewed as authoritative and inspired 400 years before any church council.

400 years? the council of Carthage was in 397.

KingofHazor said:

---

Quote:

---

If it was just a local council, why did St Augustine send the canon to be confirmed by Rome?

---

He didn't.

Quote:

---

St Augustine was the presiding bishop of the councils in question was he not? Exercising full authority over the Church in that region?

---

He wasn't. He participated, but was not the presiding bishop.

Quote:

---

Who would have been in Rome that could have possibly been needed to confirm something that a Bishop himself had overseen?

---

Not applicable question because it assumes facts that are not correct.

It's very significant that the Councils of Hippo and Carthage appeared to merely confirm a canon that was already in widespread use prior to those councils. The canonical issue to be decided at the councils was not the existing canon, but whether new books should be added to that canon. Heck, the Old Latin Translation of the Bible, which included all of the books of the Canon except for 4, was extant 200 years before those councils. From the writings of 20+ church fathers, including 3 of the NT writers and Clement of Rome, it is clearly apparent that the books we consider the NT were viewed as authoritative and inspired 400 years before any church council.

---

This is where chat GPT leads you astray my friend. Augustine drafted the list of the canon, AND was the one who spearheaded the effort to send the canon to Rome, as he was wanting universal consensus.

Aurelius may have been the dejure presider, but it was Augustine's conference in fact.

The books that we consider the NT were held as inspired 400 years before the councils? That would put them before the birth of Christ.

As mentioned there is zero doubt that there was a canon in existence before the church councils, the church doesn't often make things up out of the ether, but instead confirms things if confusion exists, as they did in this case.

Okay so yeah I got overzealous above and named Augustine as in control of the entire region. That was my fault; I can see your confusion.

Augustine of Hippo was obviously of Hippo

You engineers, always demanding precision to the 4th decimal point, and wishing for even more.

400 years was an approximation, a rounding off. You ever hear of those radical concepts? (insert winky face here which TA keeps removing for some reason - ?)


(On a personal note, I once worked at a company and my position put me squarely in the middle between a group of around 200 engineers and the marketing team. There are no groups of people more at odds with each other, in just about every aspect of their jobs, as engineers and salespeople/marketers. Cats and dogs got nothing on it.)