/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>537275

You don't have to agree with every little thing someone says just to enjoy their work. Is it also your condition of friendship that you have to agree 100% of the time on 100% of everything to be your friend?

>>537275

Maybe, maybe not. I'm a former Catholic, and got converted from listening to some of the people you named, so maybe you should maybe you shouldn't. I'd say yes, because I say it's the truth, but I think many Catholics would say no, because they think it's not the truth

>>537275

Personally Steven Anderson is a genuine wacko and Spurgeon believed historical fanfiction so I can't really understand why you'd like listening to these.

Not even looking at theology here, I'd get listening to James White but these two?

In general as a Catholic however you'd have to ask yourself the question; is it worth listening to people who are wrong on a lot of things?

>>537302

I agree with Steven Anderson on a lot of things. His sermon on Laziness really helped me for example. I also liked his talk on transhumanism. The sermons on France and Japan are also great. Take the good but ignore the bad I say. I do think he can be over the top sometimes for sure.

Concerning Spurgeon.. What do you mean Charles Spurgeon and fanfiction? Can you clarify?

>>537275

>Not absorbing based Orthodox podcasts in your spare time

You've lost m8

who are some living catholic intellectuals that baptists could find edifying?

>>537308

Why can't I both?

>>537275

>>537281

>Is it possible to be a Catholic

>In fact I like Baptists a lot in general, it's really the only Protestant denomination

>You don't have to agree with every little thing someone says just to enjoy their work.

C'mon back home as they say! :^)

But no, it's not possible to truly enjoy what those preachers preach because, unlike what >>537281 wrote, the main tenets of those Baptist preachers that anathematizes them before Rome are no small matters to us Baptists and the whole reason there will never be an effective ecumenicism movement.

Now, you could say, "but you guys like Chesterton, Tolkien, Sheen etc!" That's true, but only because we ignore their overall theology, which did not matter much with the numerous particulars they wrote or spoke of, which we happened to agree with. You can you find a few baptists who like Aquinas, but no serious Baptist who likes Belloc, Newman, A’Kempis, and the like. Form and theology go together.

"Come home" is the /christian/ equivalent to "Um, no sweetie." Annoying as heck.

>>537302

>Spurgeon believed historical fanfiction

Great source there!

>>537312

Chesterton, Fulton Sheen, O'Connor, Dorothy Parker, William Buckley Jr., Joe Sobran, Christopher Dawson (when he doesn't talk about the Reformation), Muggeridge

>>537341

>"Come home" is the /christian/ equivalent to "Um, no sweetie." Annoying as heck.

Catholics started it, but to be fair we co-opted it and made it even more annoying.

Sometimes converts are the worst. >:(

>>537302

Anderson is good on like 90% of things. At least he talks with some conviction.

>>537484

Anderson is 100% rhetoric, people just like him because they identify with the screeching protestant man.

>>537275

I don't think you should watch there videos on a regular basis because they contain many errors. Watching an interesting video you come across here or there is fine but it can be harmful to your faith without you realizing it. The church used to forbid Catholics from reading books that were considered harmful to people's faith.

>inb4 baptist says something about pope forbidding bible

>>537486

rhetoric isn't a good thing?

>>537509

by "100% Rhetoric", I mean nothing but hot air.

>>537502

>>537545

>We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old and the New Testament; unless anyone from the motives of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.’ (Edward Peters. Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, Council of Toulouse, 1229, Canon 14, p 195.)

>‘Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any other way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them.’ (Council of Trent: Rules on Prohibited Books, approved by Pope Pius IV, 1564

Yeah, i too laugh at historic revisionism. The fact is, taking away legitimate translations of the bible from folks, when all rights to Scripture belong to God solely as He is their author, is nothing short of satanic. We see from this and the medieval murders of dissenters that the RCC apostatised and had their candle taken away.

There is something to it when people read the bible and they all come to the conclusion that Rome is heretical, and there is something to it when all reformers in unison come to the conclusion Rome is the Babylonian Whore of Revelation. Hell, even St. Irenaeus took a shot at Lateinos and 666. How close he hit the mark so early on.

>>537553

>that the RCC apostatised and had their candle taken away.

As Christ said, the gates of hell shall not succeed against his Church. Or was Christ wrong?

>>537308

this

>>537553

> Council of Toulouse

Which was LOCAL Council called to meet cathar and other heresies who infused into sacred text their devilic doctrines.

>Council of Trent

Which literally says that it's ok translate Bilibe and to read it but placing yourself as authority higher than Church is where problem lies.

You are almost as bad as trial of blood memes

>>537553

>Yeah, i too laugh at historic revisionism

Historic revisionism wasn't my intention, I just found it funny. Weirdly enough, I also usually like regular baptist shitposting.

And the Bible may lead people to error as said in 2 Peter 3:16 and seen in history, so forbidding it, especially when internet didn't exist, wasn't a bad idea (though not the best).

>>537307

>Take the good but ignore the bad I say

If you're Catholic you don't have to do this, Catholicism has the longest history of any sect and is the largest, Catholics aren't starved for resources to the point where they have to tolerate the crazies like Vitamin K man at all.

>>537599

>He's an asshole but not "crazy".

He's also not particularly concerned with being consistent.

for instance, he attacks the father of modern "KJV alone is inerrant" on the basis of all the crazy stuff he says, yet still propagates the innerancy of the KJV alone, Ruckman is the father of the entire thing, even Jack Chick pays homage to him.

>>537600

We also have to atone for many mistakes we made after the '68 sexual revolution

>>537275

>Is it possible

yes, take the good they offer and ignore the bad.

for example I learned a lot from listening to this audio book by a protestant.

>>537312

E Michael Jones.

>>537556

Why are you reading into the text what is not there? Christ said the gates of hell will not prevail against His church, that's not to say a churches candle can't be taken away and passed to another. It is a historical fact that the RCC has had a slow development of novel doctrine as centuries went by.

>>537594

>Which literally says that it's ok translate Bilibe and to read it but placing yourself as authority higher than Church is where problem lies.

<Augustine, De Unitate Ecclesiae, 10.

<Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God

<Basil, On the Holy Spirit, 7.

<We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.

Holy Scripture is the ultimate rule to which things are measured, the Church is subservient to it and has its authority in what it teaches, not outside it. Neither do the ecfs speak of an oral tradition not found in the scriptures being passed down in the churches. Or do you have a list of such we can see extending all the way to the apostles? With proof of it of course, not just assertions.

>Cathar heretics.

Yes, apparently the Vandals were heretics as well but it's a curious thing to assume it true, when that claim comes from their murderers. It's hard to find out what they believed, objectively, once they and their beliefs have been rooted out in a manner breaking one of the commandments.

>>537595

To you I was too harsh, sorry. I still disagree though, if the peasants had been taught to read and write, and printing presses developed sooner, there would have been much progress a lot sooner as well. The scriptures do say there are hard parts, but stable and learned men can handle them with the Holy Spirit. The scriptures do also say the weed grow together with the grain.

>>537647

><Augustine, De Unitate Ecclesiae, 10.

><Basil, On the Holy Spirit, 7.

And your point is? Nothing here is against Trent nor Toulouse. More importantly it's actually reaffirming of it since both Fathers and Scripture are tells about mode of usage of Scripture presented by Toulouse and Trent as lawful, moral and profitable.

>Holy Scripture is the ultimate rule to which things are measured,

No, that is God. Scriptures are A rule to which things are measured, alongside Tradition and Magisterium since they are as united as they can and make good icon of Trinity.

>the Church is subservient to it and has its authority in what it teaches, not outside it.

Church have authority on its own, since it's God-Breathed. It has authority to say what Scripture is, what order of those things are and mode of usage inside of it is.

>Neither do the ecfs speak of an oral tradition not found in the scriptures being passed down in the churches.

Really. You want to go there. Are you masochist?

To narrow it to only Saints Basil and Augustine, and we can really go deeper into history:

First St. Basil

“Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term” (The Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375]).

And St.Augustine, gotta love this guy:

“[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).

“But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation” (ibid., 5:26[37]).

“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church” (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).

We can go on with those two, or we can focus on Apostolic Fathers since ECFs were fully Catholic in their look on matters

> Or do you have a list of such we can see extending all the way to the apostles?

I don't think that such list exist in fullness of it. Or maybe it does but I really don't want to look after it.

Didache is one of earliest collections of apostolic tradition teachings. And there is of course Bible Canon and order that you use.

>With proof of it of course, not just assertions.

Eyewitness and earlistener is proof for me. It was enough of a proof to spread Christianity so it should be for you too. Ignatius and Clement I for exemple were such man and gave insight unto Tradition.

>Yes, apparently the Vandals were heretics as well but it's a curious thing to assume it true, when that claim comes from their murderers. It's hard to find out what they believed, objectively, once they and their beliefs have been rooted out in a manner breaking one of the commandments.

Using the same logic we may conclude that Gnostics were right kind of Christianity all along. Or Arians. Or whoever really.

But reallity is, that Church loves Truth and keeps precise recod of what heretic thought so that noone may fall into thier errors again. But then one autistic monk came and resurrected them with power of devil.

>>537630

every christian should look him up imo

>>537671

>And your point is?

That if scripture is refuting church doctrine, then one should follow the scriptures despite what Rome claims. Yet I assume you would call this

>placing yourself as authority higher than Church is where problem lies.

>No, that is God. Scriptures are A rule to which things are measured, alongside Tradition and Magisterium since they are as united as they can and make good icon of Trinity.

Duh, the scriptures are God-breathed, so they are the ultimate authority above church teaching, as individual churches can apostatise and teach falsely as Augustine too said.

>Church have authority on its own, since it's God-Breathed.

Citation needed

>It has authority to say what Scripture is, what order of those things are and mode of usage inside of it is.

No, it merely affirms and recognizes them as led by the Holy spirit.

>t has authority to say what Scripture is, what order of those things are and mode of usage inside of it is.

You said it.

>ECFs were fully Catholic in their look on matters

I agree, they were not however Roman Catholic. None of them speak of the infallibility of the pope, transubstantiation or Marys ascension and none of them speak of bowing to and worshipping Mary.

>To narrow it to only Saints Basil and Augustine, and we can really go deeper into history:

I am posting on a phone, these two quotes merely provided the most bang for buck. There are many more ecf writers and writings affirming principles of sola scriptura.

>Traditions

Yes, they had some teachings as such, but did they teach what modern Rome claims they teached? Theyre awfully silent on papal infallibility even whe they could have used the "Rome has spoken" card on the gnostic and docetist heretics. Perhaps the idea didnt exist in their time?

>Eyewitness and earlistener is proof for me. It was enough of a proof to spread Christianity so it should be for you too. Ignatius and Clement I for exemple were such man and gave insight unto Tradition.

I'm interested in these eyewitnesses. My snarkiness aside, can you give me a keyword to search with? I can't find quotes from Ignatius on tradition as such

>Using the same logic we may conclude that Gnostics were right kind of Christianity all along. Or Arians.

Material and writings from them survived so we can objectively ascertain what they believed. The vandals on the other hand were quite literally razed to the ground, libraries and all.

>But reallity is, that Church loves Truth and keeps precise recod of what heretic thought so that noone may fall into thier errors again. But then one autistic monk came and resurrected them with power of devil.

I would rather read what that devilish monk entertained and come to my own conclusion through comparing him to the scriptures. There is no guarantee that some specific church will hold to all truth, only that the candle can be taken away and that Christ will still make sure hell will not overcome His Church, whatever that church may be. I would have no qualms with the RCC if they held to Scripture instead of claiming it as only a tool of theirs, and if they actually held to the faith once delivered. But they have dogma not found in scripture we also dont see in ecf writings, so I have a problem. Reading into the text what it does not say is still eisegesis, and the ecfs call scripture as both clear and sufficient to salvation by itself.

>Didache is one of earliest collections of apostolic tradition teachings. And there is of course Bible Canon and order that you use

Sola scriptura regards ecfs, councils and churches as authoritative as long as they agree to scripture. I believe my canon is confirmed by many of the Ecfs for example, and this echoes the verse regarding the Holy Spirit leading christians into all truth. I have no qualms with these.

>>537307

>>537341

Spurgeon was a known adherent of the 'trail of blood' theory that states that baptists have an unbroken line from the very first church Christ created to now.

>>537611

Now I realize not everyone has to follow the "official /christian/ creed" but if you do:

>If you follow the church you will be saved, stop making up your own interpretations.

>Pastor Anderson will be saved and his differing interpretations are just what he honestly believes.

???

>>537647

>Why are you reading into the text what is not there? Christ said the gates of hell will not prevail against His church, that's not to say a churches candle can't be taken away and passed to another.

That is the most amusing twistaway I've ever seen from scripture. Bravo. The gate of hell shall not prevail against His Church. His Church shall not fail. His Chuch cannot fail, unless you deem Christ false?

>>537710

Great source there!

>>537703

>That if scripture is refuting church doctrine, then one should follow the scriptures despite what Rome claims. Yet I assume you would call this

But no Church doctrine is against Scripture though. And centrally not canons of Trent and Toulouse. Your point then is?

>placing yourself as authority higher than Church is where problem lies.

Nah. I would call it being Catholic. For Catholic follows Scripture, all 73 books of it, and fallows Church for they speak with the same voice, from the same power. There is no a single note of disagreement between two.

>Duh, the scriptures are God-breathed, so they are the ultimate authority above church teaching,

But Church IS ALSO God-breathed. So according to your logic Church is the ultimate authority above scripture, since if a>a then we must tell a<a.

Lucky for us Catholic, we know that a=a and that both a's are not Ultimate Authority but God is, who gave both a's as AN authorities.

>as individual churches can apostatise and teach falsely as Augustine too said.

Individual church is not THE Church, with its Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium

>Citation needed

John 20:22 among others.

>No, it merely affirms and recognizes them as led by the Holy spirit.

Then it have authority about them, and this authority is one of the Holy Spirit. Lesser power cannot have dominion over higher one, but only about lesser and itself.

>You said it.

Nah, that was Paul when he named Church Pillar and Foundation of Truth, and Christ, when he said that Spirit of Truth will be with Church always.

>I agree, they were not however Roman Catholic.

You do know that "Roman-Catholic" is named for Catholic who participate in rite of liturgy and have nothing to do whatever with dogma, right? You cannot possibly believe in Anglican memes about thier "branches theory"?

>None of them speak of the infallibility of the pope

St. Ignatius of Antioch

>transubstantiation

Him again.

> Marys ascension

St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem

>none of them speak of bowing to

Bowing is sign of respect used to humans in Bible, just look it up on BibleGateway.

>and worshipping Mary.

Nor does Catholic Church though.

>I am posting on a phone, these two quotes merely provided the most bang for buck.

And they were null to discussion.

> There are many more ecf writers and writings affirming principles of sola scriptura.

There is NONE. Not a single one. Never ever. Even Protestant Scholar agree.

"He, therefore, will not be a Christian who shall deny this doctrine which is confessed by Christians; denying it, moreover, on grounds which are adopted by a man who is not a Christian. Take away, indeed, from the heretics the wisdom which they share with the heathen, and let them support their inquiries from the Scriptures alone: they will then be unable to keep their ground."

Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh,3

>Yes, they had some teachings as such, but did they teach what modern Rome claims they teached?

Yes. We teach in the first place because it was teached long ago.

>Theyre awfully silent on papal infallibility

St. Ireaneus

> even whe they could have used the "Rome has spoken" card on the gnostic and docetist heretics.

St. Irenaeus. He literally doesn't. He shuts up gnostics and other heretics by literally saying that Roman bishops, who have thier authority from Peter and Paul does not teach what gnostic teach and theafore gnosticism iw wrong. "Rome has spoken" 101

>I'm interested in these eyewitnesses. My snarkiness aside, can you give me a keyword to search with? I can't find quotes from Ignatius on tradition as such

Didache, Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement. Read them. They are not long and easy to find.

>Material and writings from them survived so we can objectively ascertain what they believed.

They survived in same quantity and it the same mode - Church kept them for record.

>I would rather read what that devilish monk entertained and come to my own conclusion through comparing him to the scriptures.

<I rather read Devil's work than one of Christ

Bravo. Word that you should look up and apply consequences to you is pride.

> There is no guarantee that some specific church will hold to all truth only that the candle can be taken away and that Christ will still make sure hell will not overcome His Church, whatever that church may be.

And this Church is Catholic Church since it alone hold to teaching of Christ.

>I would have no qualms with the RCC if they held to Scripture instead of claiming it as only a tool of theirs, and if they actually held to the faith once delivered.

But we do both as Christ comanded. You may finally want to read what we teach and not what protestant told you about us.

> But they have dogma not found in scripture

…Like Canon of Scripture itself…

> also dont see in ecf writings

But we do. All Dogma of Church is either expressly or alluded to in Scripture or handed down by Apostles (like Canon of Scripture or Sunday worship)

>Reading into the text what it does not say is still eisegesis

Like Protestant that since 500 years fail to admit that "Man is justified by Works and not Faith alone?" :^)

> and the ecfs call scripture as both clear and sufficient to salvation by itself.

No one ever does it, ever. See Tertullian for exemple. Or Ignatius. Or Augustine. Or Nicea I.

>ola scriptura regards ecfs, councils and churches as authoritative as long as they agree to scripture.

If it was the case then it would not be "sola" but "prima". Also, if that was the case, you would still, like Paul pray for dead, like Peter believe in purgatory and as Christ believe in Transubstantiation.

>I believe my canon is confirmed by many of the Ecfs for example, and this echoes the verse regarding the Holy Spirit leading christians into all truth. I have no qualms with these.

Problem is, that efcs agree with OUR canon of OT. Not yours, crippled one by Jews, who hated Christians so they remove them.

>>537801

>>537802

There is no point in continuing this when you deny that even one of the ecfs held to the view of perspicuity of scripture. There is a limit to how dishonest or ignorant one can be.

Augustine:

>Thus the Holy Spirit has magnificently and wholesomely modulated the Holy Scriptures so that the more open places present themselves to hunger and the more obscure places may deter a disdainful attitude. Hardly anything may be found in these obscure places which is not found plainly elsewhere. (On christian doctrine)

>I rather read Devil's work than one of Christ

>Bravo. Word that you should look up and apply consequences to you is pride.

See, there is no point in continuing when you so willingly twist my statements and lie about what I said. Goodbye

>>537795

Dude look it up yourself, no amounts of crying muh source is going to change it.

>>537275

As a protestant I would encourage you to listen to them. Even if you never end up converting you can learn a lot about protestant theology, and for the most part what they have to say about sanctification and the christian life will be compatible with living as a catholic.

>>537710

And that effects like what, one out of a hundred sermons?

>>537556

>Christ said the gates of hell shall not succeed against his Church

>Organization does something that is clearly wrong and clearly satanic. Something nobody can defend

>Conclusion: this organization is not Christ's church

It's easy!

>>537918

So you think the gates of hell succeeded against the Church.

>>537972

Christ's Church? No, the gates of hell have not succeeded against it. However, I don't believe that some organization that literally killed people for owning Bibles, preaches things that contradict The Bible, and praises and endorses non-Christian ideologies in their catechisms and practices, to be Christ's Church. That organization is not Christ's Church at all.

>>537972

If I may parse his argument…

He is taking the "Christ's Church" statement in a different direction. "You spot what the Christ's Church is by their close following to the new testament", rather than saying that the Christ's Church is always close to the new testament.

I disagree but really what can you do.

No, these false teachers will eventually lead you into heresy.

>>537275

You go middle ground, you end up middle ground

T. Martin luther

>>537811

He's another one of those ends justify the means types. Don't let it get you down.

>sola scriptura

>sola fide

and the third hidden pillar of protestants

>occasional sola st. augustine (when convenient)

>>537711

I don't speak for everyone on /christian/. My take is if we were truly concerned for eachothers souls we'd be fighting lukewarm faith and doubt we all know we have, not brow beating eachother to take on our view of the perfect doctrine which we're really only doing to satisfy our own earthly pride. God is not the author of confusion is true. We all have it wrong somewhere, but God will forgive so much and who are we to say "I have the perfect understanding of God's law"?. And these divisions are all supposed to exist as Jesus Christ said they would, so we must accept it. I believe that's what Matthew 10:34,35 means. I wish Christian wouldn't spend so much energy cursing other Christians and more trying to prop eachother up. Whenever two believers meet Jesus Christ is with us and this is what he sees, petty squabbles while brothers backslide and new believers fall away none of us bothered to try and save while fighting among ourselves. So don't give me this we lawyer our way into heaven crap. All of us have allot to answer for when we stand before God.

>>537917

>And that effects like what, one out of a hundred sermons?

Let's say that you're attending a seminar of a professor in biology, physics or whatever that openly believes and defends that chickens can breath under water.

Would you still trust this person's credibility on other topics?

>>538060

Tell us what you think sola scriptura is.

>>537900

I don't need to because I've already read about Spurgeon. You are a liar, like your "church".

>>537275 (OP)

Depends on how strong your faith is. It's not intrinsically wrong, Aristotle's writings for example have been very important in the development of Catholic philosophy.

If you have moral certainty you won't convert to Protestantism, start doubting Catholicism, Catholic doctrines, believing Protestant memes, etc., and take what they teach with healthy scepticism, you can; otherwise, you don't.

>>538160

It's a historical fanfiction made up to boost the credibility of the baptist denomination.

That's not about beliefs anymore in my opinion.

>>538472

Made up, by its own enemies?

Huldrych Zwingli (1484-1531), The History of all Religions of the World, p.406

>The institution of Anabaptism is no novelty, but for three hundred years, has caused great disturbance in the church, and has acquired such strength that the attempt in this age to contend with it appears futile for a time.

Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius (1504-1579), Opera Omnia Coloniae, Epistle 150: Alberto Bauariae Duci, p.309

>For not so long ago I read the edict of the other prince who lamented the fate of the Anabaptists who, so we read, were pronounced heretics twelve hundred years ago and deserving of capital punishment. He wanted them to be heard and not taken as condemned without a hearing.

no it’s absolutely forbidden

lol what do you want me to say lad? It doesn’t matter unless you’re getting modernist ideas in your head