/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>670267

This isn't politics. Catholicism/Orthodoxy vs. Protestantism is what it amounts to. One is tradition and one is not.

>centrist

That makes no sense.

>>670273

>>670272

I don't mean like centrist in politics view. I mean i wanna get a view on both prot and gadolig points/arguments

>>670267

God, Christ did not want us to bicker over scripture. The truth is not a matter of argument or opinion. He sent us his Apostles who taught us and that's what we've kept. If you want to trust some sect that came 1500 years after the Apostles or your local Bible study guy, it's your right, but it doesn't make sense.

You really think Christ wanted to have tens of thousands of interpretation of the Bible? Or that the Holy Ghost inspires readers of the Bible to have tens of thousands of contradictory interpretations?

>>670302

t. catholic

>>670305

Thanks friend :)

>>670307

Nice strawman. Like there isn't different secrs in Catholicism? There is this for example

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Charismatic_Renewal

>>670308

Where's the straw man? It's called reductio ad absurdum and it's a legitimate logical argument because I demonstrated how absurd the postion of personal interpretation of the scriptures is. It's relativistic in nature and relativism, too, is absurd.

>some Catholics want protestant elements in the Church

>therefore it's a sect

Nice false equivalency on your part. That's a movement, not a sect. It's not tens of thousands of denominations having contradictory interpretations on fundementals of faith.

>>670302

Do you really think Christ wanted to have a church that sold indulgences, tortured other Christians in the most vile ways, and has people that pretend to speak for Him while raping children and supporting heresy?

>>670315

Oh heeeere we go, it's the indulgences man, say hi to him kids.

>implying protestants didn't torture people

>protestant calling other people heretics

lel

>has people that pretend to speak for Him

No I'm sure Christ wanted you and your Bible study assembly to speak for Him and bring to the world the true meaning of the Bible.

Here's the protestant view of Apostolic succession:

>Christ founds His Church on st. Peter and other Apostles

>Apostles eventually die

>'oh well, that's it for the Apostles, let's claim that every person has the authority to intepret the Bible'

Catholic had to destroy the thread ofc.

>>670318

Prolly gonna get banned too now because i didn't blame baptists

>>670318

I asked legitimate questions and have gotten nothing but petty whining. You're not here to 'get a centrist view', you're here to get support for your own theories.

>>670317

And why do you want so only a priest can read the Bible then? Are you afraid or something?

>>670317

>implying protestants didn't torture people

>Implying protestants did it anywhere near as much as catholics

>implying people saying they're protestant while torturing catholics is the same as the pope and the catholic church in general condoning and engaging in it

>protestant calling other people heretics

Making out with satanic books and telling atheists they can go to heaven isn't heresy now?

>No I'm sure Christ wanted you and your Bible study assembly to speak for Him and bring to the world the true meaning of the Bible.

Pretty sure actual protestants don't have a guy in a dress LARPing as the Vicar of Christ.

>>670320

And I'm here to get videos of debates. Not to hear autists debate each other

>>670302

Christ didn't want the church split in 1054 either because the Vatican wanted to be in charge

>>670317

It's the "Roman Catholics church can do no wrong man"

>>670370

>Not papist

>posts papist link

>>670370

>muh buying salvation

>implying I even said that

>implying selling remission from sin is any better

>I’m not even Catholic, but I wish this meme would die out.

Why did later popes have to condemn priests that were doing it if it's just a meme?

>>670932

Yeah because the line should go from the early church straight to us, and the RCC should be a later spinoff which came after that. Their innovation was sacerdotalism and pedo-baptism, and later papism, none of which is anywhere in Scripture. It comes purely from politics. And that's why their doctrine changes every time a new political power comes in. Confessional baptists like John Smyth, Mennonites, SBC and others like that are more spinoffs of Christianity, with similar issues of political leaders.

the churches founded by Jesus Christ are the churches of Christ

>>671057

there never was more than one congregation in the Bible

>>671078

There are seven churches mentioned in revelations actually, and Paul even says CHURCHES of Christ in Romans 16:16

>>671086

…it's all considered one congregation, hence why St. Paul spends much of his time visiting each Church to check on them. This is basic church hierarchy here.

If Christ intended multiple churches, why did He pray that His church would not schism?

>>671129

>>671132

Christ prayed there would be no schism of faith, not that there wouldn't be multiple churches, which is why the bible literally uses the word churches.

>>670267

Here's a start.

Watch James White get spanked in a debate by a Catholic.

Debates aren't the best source for a "centrist view." Debate is not just about laying out positions in the most neutral way possible. Debate is a game. It's about posturing, quick thinking and playing to the audience. Someone can win a debate even if they're position is objectively wrong.

>>671134

there was no independent church, they were all interconnected by apostolic authority, hence why the apostles spend a good majority of their time visiting each and every community

if your church has no apostolic succession, it's not a church of Christ. a church about Christ is not the same as one being owned by Him.

>>671701

I would tend to agree with this. Often times, but not always, the kind of people who want to win debates or find out what wins debates are just trying to find the best way to pull the wool over people's eyes and how to persuade and effectively suggest things to a crowd, they're not really interested in finding or expounding the truth accurately, more interested in just being able to sound right to an average audience.

>>671852

>>671701

Yep. Although sometimes, in successful debates a pitfall of one ideology or the other can be revealed, that's what I like about them. It's just sad that most people see them as a sort of fistfight, and if you've ever seen a comments section on one everyone's sticking to their own fighter and holding them up as a winner. Just ignore all the actual discussion, say "Opponent x got SMACKED!"

>>671852

>they're not really interested in finding or expounding the truth accurately, more interested in just being able to sound right to an average audience.

There's a word the Bible uses to describe that, it is called smooth things and wisdom of words see isaiah 30:8-10

>Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever:

>That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD:

>Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits:

1 corinthians 1:17-31

>For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

>For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

>For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

>Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

>For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

>For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

>But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

>But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

>Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

>For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

>But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

>And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

>That no flesh should glory in his presence.

>But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

>That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

>>671814

<if your church has no apostolic succession, it's not a church of Christ

Wrong, see romans 8:14

>For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

A "church" of Christ would simply be one of His disciples as mentioned in romans 16:5

>Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epnetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.

The "church" is not the "house" it is the one who is "greet"'ed or saluted, which is Epnetus. See 1 corinthians 14:23

>If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

The "church" or "churches" are just Christians, who are disciples or followers/led of Christ, and nothing more or less.