104139 No.682728
The Apostolic's (I use Apostolics referring to Catholic and Orthodox) have better legitimacy and history but the Baptists seem to have better Biblical reasoning for their positions. Is there anything I should read on this topic to help me come to a conclusion, except the Bible, I am reading that already. Help.
437b5c No.682729
>>682728
>all Apostolic Churches, founded by the Apostles, have the same doctrine (gee what a coincidence)
>but Baptists have good rhetoric hence they are the Church that Christ established when He said to st. Peter 'you are the rock of my Church and I will give you the keys to Heaven'
183b5a No.682730
I would go to a church for each one (a Baptist, Catholic, or Orthodox one) and see how you feel then. Have faith in the Holy Spirit to guide you to where you should be. What you're going to hear here is another debate about apostolic succession and the like.
7b02a0 No.682732
Are you inclined to think that Christ left us a living, persistent Church that has a historical presence and is able to help us understand our religion and interpret scripture? So we don't diverge in hundreds/thousands of sects?
Or are you inclined to think that Christ just gave us a book and left us to our own devices to interpret it in potentially hundreds/thousands of different ways?
Do you want to pick a church that is just as old as your religion, or a church that is younger than your religion? Consider these things and pray about them.
0d8b7a No.682756
Do you believe in Christ or in your belief of Christ?
c65961 No.682774
>>682728
Lord all these answers are terrible.
Read the Apostolic Fathers. Specifically the Letter of Ignatius and the Diadace. You need the mass and communion as much as you need the word which is the Bible since the death of the Apostles.
>But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized in the name of the Lord…
1fa44a No.682798
>>682728
There is an easy way to settle this. Let's build a time machine and go back to first century Rome to see if Christians looked more like Apostolics or Catholics. Oh wait, we don't need to, we have the letters of the Church Fathers. And they all talk and worship like Apostolics. Sorry Prots, nice try.
36664b No.682816
>>682728
Both Catholic and Orthodox have altered their doctrine over time
d00fa1 No.682817
>>682816
Yes, that is true. But who has altered the most and for what reasons?
0d1dcc No.682818
>>682729
>all Apostolic Churches, founded by the Apostles, have the same doctrine (gee what a coincidence)
No they don't.
1fa44a No.682820
>>682816
Any examples of the Catholic changing doctrine?
0b0409 No.682837
Why not choose a church which does not shun either the biblical gospel or the ancient practice of infant baptism?
70afa2 No.682840
>>682837
So the Reformed?
:^)
70afa2 No.682847
>>682843
I guess you could say that it would be totally depraved of me not to elect to join them.
deba6c No.682850
2420d8 No.682858
>>682816
Yes. Except Orthodox.
6e325f No.682866
>>682858
>pre schism
The Pope is the head of the church
>schism
We new Rome now
>Council of Florence
OK Pope you are the boss again and the filioque thing was a meme after all
>post council
Submits to the people and political leaders of the time and reject the council of Florence.
a06950 No.682875
>>682728
>the Baptists seem to have better Biblical reasoning for their positions.
Nah, just subtle fallacies.
64ccec No.682878
I like how all the answers in this thread are:
>read non-scriptural sources as evidence of the existence of my holy, apostolic, universal, non-apostatized church.
at the end of the day, apostolics happily contradict the bible through many of their false teachings. Paul warned in his epistles of false prophets in his time, and that's all these apostolics are, crypto-pharisee cults hijacking the grace given by God, to grace given by "Church".
1 Timothy 4:1-3
1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
8a968d No.682880
>>682878
And yet anon, in Acts, we clearly see a visible Church and one that is not Baptist. Sola Scriptura is a self-defeating argument that does not take into account how scripture was formed and decided on, not to mention how Protestants blatantly took out several books.
695909 No.682882
>>682880
>And yet anon, in Acts, we clearly see a visible Church and one that is not Baptist.
>the churches in the New Testament didn't practice baptism by immersion
>Acts 8:36-37 doesn't exist, Acts 2:41-42 doesn't exist
>Sola Scriptura is a self-defeating argument that does not take into account how scripture was formed and decided on not to mention how Protestants blatantly took out several books.
>not realizing it was the councils that erroneously added books to their scripture and this already sufficiently proves they were wrong
Get a KJV and start studying to avoid these kinds of double-think fallacies.
25b0ed No.682889
>>682820
Vatican 2
Theyvalsobwoukd execute people for translating the Bible don't care anymore
adc971 No.682890
>>682880
>Being a summer visitor
Actually popes, even the reformers' opponents, didn't view the apocryphal books as scripture until the council of trent (although they did find them very wise, as did luther and Calvin).
Have you ever wonder why the Christian scriptures are called "canon" when the apocryphal books are titled "deuterocanonical", which means second canon?
642b82 No.682905
>>682889
An incredibly vague statement and a completely false one? C'mon guys, you can do better
2767c1 No.682907
>>682889
>Vatican 2
Please tell us which of the 255 infallible dogmas did VII change, or are you jut talking out of your ass?
>They would execute people for translating the Bible without proper ecclesiastical permission and then use their translation to deliberate mislead other people
ftfy.
6e325f No.682908
>>682878
>1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
Thanks for proving protestantism if the work of the devil
6e325f No.682909
>>682907
Btw is there any kind of list that compiled all the dogmas?
d58c4a No.682910
>>682817
Rome has undergone far more change than Orthodoxy.
6e325f No.682912
2767c1 No.682913
>>682909
I found this one a while ago.
http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Dogmas-Of-The-Faith.pdf
It's all 255 infallible Truths, plus some others that haven't been defined yet.
6e325f No.682914
7da9d4 No.682916
>>682880
You're right, anon.
That's why we should return to the Biblical and Apostolic form of Church government: a council of elders (presbyters) instead of having monarchial episcopacies.
6e325f No.682918
>>682916
Exactly anon.
I looked on Google for some denomination just like that. Those guys live in Rome or something. Worth to check it out.
7da9d4 No.682920
>>682918
>Rome
>the very definition of monarchial episcopate
>like the council of elders
wew lad
6e325f No.682923
>monarchial episcopate
Wait are you telling me the bishops of the Catholic Church are elected because they are the sons of previous Bishops? Wow thanks for warning me anon.
>>682916
>Apostolic form of Church government: a council of elders
Yeah I've heard of a church that their bishops are the successors of the Apostles, and they have their councils, but they must be heretics right?
8a968d No.682925
>>682882
>Arguing against Baptism by immersion when I'm referring to the practice of only baptizing adults
70afa2 No.682935
>>682923
You are aware that the "monarchial" in "monarchial episcopacy" refers to the fact that only one person is ruling the local church government as opposed to a multiplicity of elders.
Has nothing to do with hereditary succession, my man.
Unless you're talking about that time the popes had kids and they became popes, too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saeculum_obscurum
>I've heard of a church that their bishops are the successors of the Apostles, and they have their councils
Would you be talking about the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, or Syriac Church of the East?
9ddf76 No.682949
THE . BIBLE . ISN'T . EVERYTHING
70afa2 No.682954
>>682949
No, it's not everything.
It's sufficient.
b2ab29 No.682957
>>682866
>imagine actually believing this
c65961 No.682962
>>682957
>look up what Filoque means
Are we really so prideful that we would try and split the church over a disagreement about something like this. Are Catholics and Orthodox even that different. I mean really the early church had tons of different doctrine among them and they were still considered in communion are we different enough to not be in communion or are we secretly in communion but no one will admit it. Lord help us all the more I read about the schism the dumber it sounds.
70c6d3 No.682964
>>682893
As a protestant, I don't know how to feel about this. I understand the significance of communion but I don't believe that you need communion to be saved. I understand the significance of having one Church of Christ but I don't believe in the heresies that the Pope and the Catholic Church in general believes in.
My greatest fear is being told by our Lord that I never knew him. That's why I rely so heavily on the Bible; because I don't want to follow in the doctrines of men. May God reveal everything in the end and I will pray that those who seek the truth will find it.
33506d No.682968
>>682964
>heresies
according to whom? you and your interpretation? Protestantism has no dogmas that are set in stone, everyone believes what they want, there is no "heresy" in protestantism.
c65961 No.682969
>>682964
What heresies do you think we believe in?
>I understand the significance of communion but I don't believe that you need communion to be saved.
The Eucharist has been a part of the church since the Apostles. The Apostles literally spoke the bible there was no bible and Jesus at no point said hey guys write this down. If the Apostles said hey eat this bread and drink this wine it is the blood and body then it is probably true.
698252 No.682971
>>682962
>Are we really that different?
On a number of issues, yes we are. The Filioque is not just some different wording, but sets up a completely different understanding of the Trinity.
70afa2 No.682973
>>682964
>As a protestant
Are you reformed?
Or are you semi-popish?
c65961 No.682977
>>682971
True but I guess where I fall on the issue is both sides are being to prideful in assuming they have the right to separate the church over an argument about the mysteries of God. I mean we essentially believe in the trinity it not like one side is saying there is only God and the Son or straight up heresy. I could be wrong but anyway what are some of the other issues we disagree on I am curious.
c65961 No.682979
>>682968
Worse they removed several books from the OT and were going to remove some from the NT until Luther's own followers threatened to kick his heretical ass out. Specifically the parts about DON'T separate the Church over petty arguments and disagreements. Also adding "alone" to a certain verse the quote until they are blue in the face.
698252 No.682982
>>682977
The nature of sin and salvation, the immaculate conception, worship of the Eucharist, and the delay of communion from some baptized members. Those are just a few off the top of my head.
c65961 No.682989
>>682982
>nature of sin and salvation
Even among Catholics people disagree I don't think that would really warrant a schism.
>the immaculate conception
Explain this one a little more.
>worship of the Eucharist
As long as you believe it is actually the body and blood I don't think it is a problem. Unless there is something I don't know.
>the delay of communion from some baptized members
That's nothing.
Like I said even in the early Church there were disagreements on different matters but it didn't take them out of communion with each other only VERY heretical things would do that. Anyway I am just curious I don't really know a lot about the Orthodox.
698252 No.682994
>>682989
We do not believe in the Immaculate Conception, and it has a bit to do with the way we both understand sin. Original vs Ancestral. The worship of the Eucharist is what is done by Catholics in adoration chapels, where the Eucharist is worshiped. Having a delayed communion from baptized members sets up different types of Christians. In Orthodoxy, you are either a Christian entitled to communion or you are not, no different degrees. These are just a few things, and while they seem small, both sides have an established theology behind them.
c65961 No.683007
>>682994
>We do not believe in the Immaculate Conception
Yeah I could see how that would be a tough one to get by to be fair it was only dogmatized on our side because we had a miracle where Mary told us that though think of that what you will.
>Original vs Ancestral
Not even going to try opening that can of worms.
>The worship of the Eucharist is what is done by Catholics in adoration chapels, where the Eucharist is worshiped.
True but that is because we believe it is the actual living presence of Jesus Christ. Though very very few Catholics actual go and worship the Eucharist outside of Communion I actually didn't even know this was a thing though from what I did find it dates all the way back to the 1st century.
> In Orthodoxy, you are either a Christian entitled to communion or you are not, no different degrees. These are just a few things, and while they seem small, both sides have an established theology behind them.
So this is kind of complicated we essentially believe the same thing the difference is you allow them to eat bread but it isn't the Eucharist I am paraphrasing but anyway in a Catholic Church we don't have that if you can't have Communion you sit on your hands and get nothing or a blessing from the priest. It gets even more complicated though because TECHNICALLY a Catholic can receive Communion in an Orthodox Church and vice versa
> Thus while it permits Eastern Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church (Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodoxy and Assyrian Church of the East) to receive Communion from Catholic ministers, if they request it of their own accord and are properly disposed, and it applies the same rule also to some Western Churches that the Holy See judges to be in a situation similar to that of Eastern Christians with regard to the sacraments;
In practice this basically never happens for obvious reason but Catholic man is dying and wants last rites performed an Orthodox priest can do it and it is all good. That would be the only time it would come up.
47143d No.683064
>>682957
>ironically believing in your pic
Daily reminder that Leo III did really supported the filioque doctrine, but didn't want to include in the creed not to hurt Easterners feelings.
Acts 16:7
And when they were come into Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia: and the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not.
Philippians 1:19
For I know that this shall fall out to me unto salvation, through your prayer and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ,
MUH IT PROCEEDS FROM THE FATHER ONLY
d871da No.683070
>>683064
>Daily reminder that Leo III did really supported the filioque doctrine, but didn't want to include in the creed not to hurt Easterners feelings.
lol those papal pranks eh?
6e325f No.683104
c9752d No.683132
>>682973
I don't have any solid denomination that I adhere to. I used to call myself Calvinist but I don't believe in everything that Calvinism says.
c65961 No.683135
>>683132
Consider Begome Orthodox or Submit to Rome.
6bb42a No.683166
>>682964
>I understand the significance of communion.
Well that makes you a bit un-protestant does it not?
>I do not believe in heresies Pope and Cath. church believes in
What heresies? There are so many prots denom. and each teches "heresy is something I dislike because muh my interpretation of scripture" How can prots seriously even use the term heresy? First there has to be some dogma, then there can be heresy.
Look I don't want to hammer you down. I think that if you're interested in Catholicism and you find yourself in agreement in some areas you SHOULD get the look from catholic perspective. I am sorry but Prots will tell you "those caths worship Mary as God" "They worship statues" and other BS. Also then there's the unpopular thing - the authority. One has to submit to authority, one may no longer claim "muh my interpretation of scripture. But that's how it goes.
Also>>682979
>>683132
begome gadolig
70afa2 No.683210
>>683132
What issues are you having with Calvinism?
If it's the Real Presence, Reformed theology acknowledges it albeit it's mystical, not literal.
6e325f No.683227
>>683210
>albeit it's mystical, not literal
Heretical and gay
70afa2 No.683228
db63f3 No.683290
>>682728
>The Baptist have better reasoning
Done. Also sums up non catholics pretty well.
0d1dcc No.683291
>>683064
>Daily reminder that Leo III did really supported the filioque doctrine, but didn't want to include in the creed not to hurt Easterners feelings.
He literally said that he did it out of respect for the council fathers.
He and most previous popes couldn't care less about Easterners feelings, since they believed they were the supreme head of the Church and had to be followed in everything anyway.