Calvin and Ignatius: WA's Strange World of History

So William Albrecht sent me a note today with some more of his responses, which again, I would normally Not spend time responding to but since Steve Ray Catholic apologist extraordinaire has in essence Knighted William to defend him I had to look through them at least to see if there was something to respond to other than uh-uh.

Which is the primary? methodological Application that that is made and I did find some things that hopefully will be helpful to the average viewer of our videos because there was some stuff that will help me to Illustrate once again that it's important to know something about church history.

I don't care what apologetic area interests you. Jehovah's Witnesses any type of pseudo-christian cult. Roman Catholicism Islam Atheism. You need to know something about our history and you need to recognize that because of the advent of the internet.

There's all sorts of really bad information out there That can be used against you if you don't have some knowledge of who at least some of the early church fathers When they wrote what they wrote about things like that.

And so we'll take a look at a place where William demonstrates that he doesn't know a lot about Ignatius or especially doesn't think about John Calvin and the situation at the time of Calvin's writing.

But there was a lot of just insulting stuff to get through some of which just leaves you going. Really Wow. Fascinating and so we start off. Remember I identified Steve Ray as a liar. Because anyone who says that I say that everyone near the church was a reformed Baptist or something like that is a is a liar.

The Claim That Ignatius Was a Protestant Is a Misrepresentation

And that's exactly what Steve Ray said on his blog. He said was st. Ignatius a Protestant. What is that supposed to say? What does that mean? Well, unfortunately poor William doesn't catch the context a lot of things that we're saying and Well, here's what he had to say.

A lot is that if anyone claims that James says that he says that everyone in the early church held a Baptist use their liars. Well James Steve Ray and I I've never made any such comment. I don't know why you attempt to apply it or flat-out say that we have made such comments.

We have not.

Once again, we're left really wondering Did did William actually listen to the dividing line that he claims to be responding to. I pointed out that he? Contradicted Steve Ray and that in fact a Steve Ray had actually watched the videos.

It would have heard that William contradicted Steve Ray on this very point that even William Recognized that I was not making the claim that Ignatius was a Protestant and yet look at the screen. This is straight from Steve Ray's blog and it says was the anti-catholic correct.

On YouTube was st Ignatius a Protestant. Then notice it says an anti-catholic recently put up a pathetic YouTube video Criticizing my recent radio show where I talked about the apostolic fathers and how Catholic they really were.

Some of these angry anti Catholics tried to twist the early Christians into pretzels. Ridiculously trying to recreate them into reformed Baptist or other such nonsense. So, you know William Steve you guys gotta get together on how you're going to attack us.

Because you keep contradicting each other and it's it's a little bit of a silly thing to observe. But it doesn't change the fact that.

John Calvin on the Pseudo-Ignatian Epistles

You with your Calvinistic views Completely wrenched the early fathers out of context your lies are apparent. Even your own followers James. You're failure to deal with anything when I present in an Ignatius.

You're failing to admit that you misquoted not just misused misquoted Augustine. It's all evidence that points to the fact that you are indeed very dishonest James. I don't understand what your real issue is here.

I mean, no one is claiming that you said all the early fathers tell to you believes. But still you're the one that comes out with mud in your face. You go out of your way James to attempt to misrepresent the early fathers because you know, they're dangerous to your position.

Well is James the very first Protestant to become enraged the fact that the early church was Catholic. And when I say Catholic I don't mean Roman Catholic as James White terms. Everyone with half a brain cell knows that Catholicism encompasses more than just the Roman right.

So you sound foolish and silly when you say Roman Catholic. So you're talking about the Roman right over you're not speaking about all of the other Catholic churches around the world get real. That's something for James and his cronies to think about.

But getting back to the point James was indeed not the first Protestant to become enraged the fact that the early church was Catholic and Didn't resemble that of Protestantism. We have other Protestants before James and.

Well, one of them that steps out particularly is Calvin. What is particularly enjoyable to read from John Calvin is this particular quote. Can be found as in his work on entitled institutes. There is Calvin says.

Nothing more abominable than the trash which is in circulation under the name of Ignatius. What was John Calvin's main issue with Ignatius? Well as anyone can easily tell you it was a simple reason an Issue that Ignatius represented a model of the very early church.

An apostolic father that confirmed the Episcopacy and the teachings of the Catholic Church has always claimed could be dated back to the time of Christ.

Now here is Calvin's actual citation from institutes book 1 chapter 13 section 29. With regard their citation of Ignatius if they want to have any weight let them prove that the Apostles made a law concerning lent and like Corruptions nothing is more disgusting than those vile absurdities which have been put forth under the name of Ignatius.

Even less tolerable is the shamelessness of those who cover themselves with such masks in order to deceive. Now what Calvin is referring to here are not the genuine Ignatian epistles. He did not reject all of them as being Spurious.

What he is referring to are the pseudo Ignatian epistles those that were written in later times that Anachronistically read back into that time period beliefs that did not exist as. One of the footnotes in this particular translation of Calvin says the can of Ignatius's letters was not determined until the 19th century.

Numerous spurious epistles were ascribed to him by Jacques Lefebvre in addition of 1498. These are translated from W. Curiton's Corpus Ignatium in the Ananysing Fathers number one the spurious letter to the Philippians contains in chapter 8 the injunction Despise not the period of 40 days.

So this is what Calvin is referring to. He's referring to these Ahistorical works not to the actual works of Ignatius himself, even though William later on in his video accuses Calvin of that just put it very mildly William is completely missing the point of.

What Calvin is talking about here and therefore? Really misapplying this in its entirety in making application to me as well. Now remember that what I have said concerning Williams is just simply this that he believes.

Interpreting the Fathers Without Reading Modern Dogma Back Into Them

That all the other church fathers believed what he believes and that if you disagree You are automatically taking them out of context. His phrase take them out of context is not what every other English-speaking person in the world means by taking them out of context.

Earlier we saw him saying what we never said that that you said these people were were Reformed Baptists or Protestants. Keep that in mind and keep the circularity of his thought in mind as you look at this next clip and hear him saying that I as a Protestant cannot even read or interpret the early church fathers.

Calvin couldn't and wouldn't have any of this. So what do we do? Well, I guess if the other church doesn't agree with you you simply accuse them to be heretics like Dave Hunt or. Like mr. White you ripped them completely out of context.

Mr. White. I'm gonna tell you this honestly I'm gonna stare right at this camera and be downright honest with you. You have no right to be meddling in the writings of the early church fathers. They were not Protestant in any way whatsoever.

They didn't provide services on Sundays with grape juice and crackers. Never Keep misrepresenting the church and I'll keep pointing your terrible misusage and misquotations out.

Well, I have no doubt that William probably will continue to do what he thinks is pointing out Tearing the early church fathers out of their context because in the world of William What they meant in their context doesn't matter what they meant in their language doesn't matter.

The only thing that matters is what modern Roman Catholicism has defined as dogma. That then becomes the milieu in which all the early church fathers to be interpreted. And so if you disagree with Rome, well, then that means you really can't deal with the early church fathers now thankfully Rational folks recognize that that's not a meaningful argument, but this is the gentleman that Steve Ray Ignatius press author frequent guest on Catholic answers Directed people to now he did so by lying about me and then even William doesn't seem to understand that he then continued that lie but.

The Fraudulent Documents Behind the Papacy

That's what you're dealing with and you deal with pop Roman Catholicism. It is a system that its entire central Locusts in the papacy Continues this day to be based historically upon fraudulent documents.

Those documents have been seen to be fraudulent. The pseudo is a Dorian decretals the donation of Constantine all were vital in the development of papacy and Everyone today knows they're fraudulent. They've been washed away, but the the structure that was created Continues to exist to this day.

It's an amazing thing to observe. It truly is.