/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>705811

Okay, the Trail of Blood isn't supported by any Christian sects and only people who meme and shitpost post it.

>>705814

Don't the Andersonites support it?

>>705854

Listen if you state that you come from Gnostic people who murdered priests, you aren't Christian.

>>705851

>and only people who meme and shitpost

>>705811

Hi OP, Reformed Christian here. First thing I'd like to get out of the way is the trail of blood meme isn't really Protestant so much as Anabaptist. Historically, the reformers said the Roman church became formally apostate at the Council of Trent, not before. Before that parting of ways they considered themselves as doing nothing more but reforming the church of Rome, and they saw Trent as the unreformed churches formally schisming from Christ's Church. They certainly didn't believe Constantine created the papacy, in fact they held the man up as an example of a pious Christian ruler.

To ask where the church went off the rails is asking the wrong question. The corruption of the church isn't some one event that happened at one time, it's a process that began during the ministry of the apostles and has never ceased. There's never been any conspiracy to turn Christianity into Romanism or something, what actually happened was centuries upon centuries of organic development. The true problem, which caused the corruption to win in that once great institution, is insufficient vigilance and balance on part of the holy fathers. Had they a more broad spectrum focus on stomping out error, instead of the emphasis on the nature of God and Christ, it is unlikely the captivity of the Church would have happened at all. Now imagine you are a pagan citizen of the Roman Empire. The emperor has just made an edict that Christianity is the only religion fit for a Roman. So you accept baptism so you and your family can continue to live peaceably, yet you raise your children to continue your ancestral traditions. They will do likewise with their children, and at some point they will draw a connection between the old gods and the great men of this religion. They gain a belief that just as it was with the gods, they may gain temporal aid from these saints, so they repeat the rituals with the saints, such as worshipping their image. This is all private, but growing, until you have devout men entering the clergy who have never known anything but this mixed religion. It is the religion they received from tradition, so they know it came from the apostles. Some fathers may raise a fuss here and there about their worship of idols, but it continues to grow until it is the dominant practice of the church and those few who still decry it as pagan worship are condemned as novel heretics. This is just one example of how too little vigilance can enable corruption of faith and practice, and historically this is what we seem to find. The west decayed slower and less so than the east due primarily to its dedication to highly orthodox men like Augustine, but by the high middle ages men like Berengarius were being ostracized for believing the same thing as Augustine about the Eucharist. Though it was not yet formally apostate, the church grew to the point where it was no longer safe to be an orthodox Christian inside it. For this reason, God created the various proto-Protestant churches, the Waldensians, Hussites, Lollards etc. They bore the torch of the gospel until God reformed the church of Rome, using men like Martin Luther and John Calvin to purge Christianity of the heresies and sacrileges that came in over the centuries.

>>705858

Okay I unironically believe the trail of blood and it doesn't make me a gnostic. That's like me saying that you're a pederast because you're a catholic.

>>705861

So you believe that you came from Gnostic Cathars who rejected Christ?

>>705811

>Do you believe there was an "orthodox" church but that it was lost, or do you believe it always existed but was suppressed?

Catholicism started in 4th century, and church is the body of believers. There isn't one central church, there are many churches (groups of believers) and the body of Christ is all believers.

>Or do you believe that the Church doesn't need any direct continuity so long as there are people who believe rightly?

This is true

>>705864

>So you are inevitably a gnostic if you disagree with me

F***in' lol.

Yeah dude, you got me. I come from the school of kleck. We are all trapped in the human host body system and we need to be turned back right side up.

Watch this guy who exposes the roman catholic church shutting up the kingdom of God.

>>705860

Interesting.

Now since the Roman church was not technically apostate before the Council of Trent, does that mean that official Doctrine of the Roman Church was valid? Also does that make the Orthodox apostate at 1054, or was it earlier or later than that?

>>705867

>expose

But it doesn't do anything of the sort

>>705877

You need to be turned right side up, friend.

>>705877

there's no way you watched that entire film.

one of the first things michael the archangel told him was to turn his shirt tag upside down and read what it said

100% nylon

(upside down)

100% Nolyn

100% NO LYIN'

>>705874

>does that mean that official Doctrine of the Roman Church was valid?

Only if it is consistent with scripture.

>Also does that make the Orthodox apostate at 1054, or was it earlier or later than that?

I'm not familiar enough with the history of the eastern church to say when exactly it became apostate, but the mutual excommunication of Rome and Constantinople certainly wouldn't qualify. Such petty schismatic squabbles of men don't make a church false.

>>705937

How do you determine what is consistent with Scripture? Do you take the traditional interpretation (like where there is consensus among the Fathers on a particular interpretation) as valid, or do you believe that the Fathers were in error?

>>705941

>How do you determine what is consistent with Scripture?

By reading it.

>Do you take the traditional interpretation (like where there is consensus among the Fathers on a particular interpretation) as valid, or do you believe that the Fathers were in error?

The fathers are correct when they are correct, and in error when they are in error.

>>705970

>By reading it.

Well, obviously. The problem is with interpretation, two people can read the same passage and come to two different conclusions. How do you solve the issue of having "orthodox" interpretation?

>>705974

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical-grammatical_method

>>705982

>by using this arbitrary method over others I dislike

oh neat

>>705982

Interesting.

>The aim of the historical-grammatical method is to discover the meaning of the passage as the original author would have intended and what the original hearers would have understood.

Wouldn't this view lead to acceptance of early church tradition? What are your views regarding the Apostolic Fathers and documents like the Didache?

>>705986

>caring what the apostles actually meant is arbitrary

>>705989

>Wouldn't this view lead to acceptance of early church tradition?

Inasmuch as early church tradition is biblical. It would not lead to rejecting apostolic doctrines for patristic ones.

>What are your views regarding the Apostolic Fathers and documents like the Didache?

They were very soon after the apostles and show the first inklings of development into what the churches would become over the next couple centuries (for example they seem to be contemporary to the development of the single bishop model of church government, which would become definitional of ecclesiastical institutions until the Reformation). If you're asking if I thought they were generally orthodox, yes.

>>705992

>It would not lead to rejecting apostolic doctrines for patristic ones.

A lot of Protestants seem to take a liking to Augustine. Is there a reason they prefer him over eastern fathers?

>They were very soon after the apostles

In the case of the Didache it's dated to the first century.

>>705992

>>caring what the apostles actually meant is arbitrary

If you cared you would join the church that preserves their interpretation forever and ever, not some reconstructionist modernist apostate sect that picks and chooses between various "hermeneutics" to guess at what the apostles meant.

If God wanted us to follow a religion he would not simply give us a book to ponder, but living teachers and living disciples to preserve and preach it properly.

Protestantism is too young to be the religion of Christ

>>705996

>A lot of Protestants seem to take a liking to Augustine. Is there a reason they prefer him over eastern fathers?

I think for learned and studious Protestants the reason is they see him approving so many of our doctrines and interpretations, perhaps most of all the fathers who speak on so much. But for most, I think the reason is out of tradition, since Augustine was beloved by the reformers.

>In the case of the Didache it's dated to the first century.

Sure, by many. But not by everyone.

>>705867

Wait, so you deny that Cathars were a gnostic heresy?

Plot twist: baptists today are a gnostic heresy

>>705811

literally WE WUZ tier

>>705880

>>705879

I didn't, because I refuse to argue with Cathars

>>706460

Also here's a few laws that were passed at various times.

16.6.4 The same Augustuses to Hadrianus, Praetorian Prefect.

>We sanction by this law that if any person should hereafter be discovered to rebaptize, he shall be brought before the judge who presides over the province. Thus, the offenders shall be punished by the confiscation of all their property, and they shall suffer the penalty of poverty, with which they shall be afflicted forever. But if their children dissent from the depravity of the paternal association, they shall not forfeit the paternal inheritance. Likewise, if perchance they have been involved in the perversity of the paternal depravity and prefer to return to the Catholic religion, the right to acquire possession of such property shall not be denied them. (A.D. 405 febr. 12)

16.6.6 Emperors Honorius and Theodosius Augustuses to Anthemius, Praetorian Prefect.

>No person shall resort to the crime of rebaptizing, nor shall he endeavor to pollute with the filth of profaned religions and the sordidness of heretics those persons who have been initiated in the rites of the orthodox… if after the time that the law was issued any person should be discovered to have rebaptized anyone who had been initiated into the mysteries of the Catholic sect, he shall suffer the penalty [of death], along with the person rebaptized, because he has committed a crime that must be expiated, provided, however, that the person so persuaded is capable of crime by reason of his age. (A.D. 413)

Codex Justinianus Book 1, Title 6 (A.D. 529)

1.6.2

Emperors Honorius and Theodosius to Anthemius, praetorian Prefect.

>If any person shall be discovered to rebaptize anyone of the catholic faith, he, together with him who has permitted this infamous crime – provided the person persuaded to be rebaptized be of an age capable of a crime – shall be punished by death.

First Saxon Capitulary (A.D. 785)

>19. Likewise, it has been pleasing to insert in these decrees that all infants shall be baptized within a year; and we have decreed this, that if any one shall have despised to bring his infant to baptism within the course of a year, without the advice or permission of the priest, if he is a noble he shall pay 120 solidi to the treasury, if a freeman 60, if a litus 30.

>>706460

Why do you you believe in the trail of blood? Honest question.

>>706474

I do not support the 1931 publication Trail of Blood and all of its claims but I do believe the basic underlying idea behind it because the gates of hell shall not prevail against his church.

The reasons are all found in the Bible, just like all of our beliefs do.

Quoted from: >>706460

>>706460

I understand that you rely solely on the Scripture for your understanding of the faith. Do you view the councils and synods establishing which books would be accepted into the canon as valid? Was the Holy Spirit guiding these bishops even though they were heretics/pagans? What do you make of certain passages, like the story of the adulteress in John, which are found in some manuscripts but not others? Why was the deuterocanon accepted even in the early church?

>>706478

Well I get that, it just seems odd to believe that you don't think Peter is the rock that helped form the Church

>>706479

>Do you view the councils and synods establishing which books would be accepted into the canon as valid?

What does "valid" mean? Does it mean I think they described scripture accurately in a particular place or does it mean I agree with modern day Catholics interpretation of things?

>Was the Holy Spirit guiding these bishops even though they were heretics/pagans?

I'm not going to judge someone I don't even know. For all I know their writings have been altered by the time I get them, so how could I judge someone I've never even met? And even if I have met someone, my discernment is my discernment only.

>What do you make of certain passages, like the story of the adulteress in John, which are found in some manuscripts but not others?

They're found in the received word in the original language, so I view them equally with scripture. I disagree most of all with textual critics, who are quite literally playing with fire. Hope that helps.

>Why was the deuterocanon accepted even in the early church?

Was it though, or was that a sign that it wasn't a church? And what's your definition of the early church by the way? Maybe we should talk about the definition of the word church, because a church is an assembly. Very often the NT describes "churches" plural. You shouldn't think that talking about "the church" in the abstract is any more indicative than as when the NT talks about "the husband" and what the husband ought to do.

>>706481

"This rock" in Matthew 16:18 is grammatically pointing back to Peter's confession, and the subject of that confession (Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.) was Christ himself. This rock is the Lord Jesus Christ whom Peter had addressed. See Ephesians 2:20, 1 Cor. 3:11.

>>706484

>What does "valid" mean?

Valid meaning they were correct in their decision on which books are canon.

>I'm not going to judge someone I don't even know.

I'm not asking you to judge them, I'm asking if you believe the Holy Spirit was guiding these men to the Truth during their deliberations or not.

>definition of the word church

Εκκλησία is the original Greek and it does mean "assembly" in English.

>Was it though, or was that a sign that it wasn't a church?

It wasn't an assembly of Christians?

>And what's your definition of the early church by the way?

The early church would be the Orthodox Church of course :^). But more to your point, I'd say it's the collection of "churches" established by the Apostles and maintained by those who were ordained by them. The timeline being the 1st and 2nd, maybe 3rd centuries.

>>705970

>By reading it.

>The fathers are correct when they are correct, and in error when they are in error.

These are meanless copout answers.

>>706489

>Valid meaning they were correct in their decision on which books are canon.

Only the ones that were correct. Anything that was incorrect is not valid. So being valid is just another way of saying being correct on something.

>I'm asking if you believe the Holy Spirit was guiding these men to the Truth during their deliberations or not.

Good question, but I don't even know who these men are or what real effect they had. The content of scripture was already decided long before councils, a council was never needed for that.

What's going on is that people credit them for something that God already did before them. The interesting part is that they got it wrong. So considering that I don't trust in them and think they got it wrong by adding in extra apocrypha, it seems strange that someone would think I got any ideas from them. Rather, men took some ideas and made random unauthorized adjustments, taking credit for it in the process.

I don't know who's really behind it, but I do know it happened.

>It wasn't an assembly of Christians?

If someone can't tell the difference between the Bible and something conceived by men, like say the Quran, and they are considering adding it, then there is something seriously wrong there.

>>706499

>Only the ones that were correct. Anything that was incorrect is not valid.

How do you determine whether they were correct or not?

>The content of scripture was already decided long before councils

Can you provide evidence for this? To my knowledge there were books which were quite popular in the early church, but nonetheless didn't make it into the canon. Wouldn't this indicate that the question of canon was up in the air?

>If someone can't tell the difference between the Bible and something conceived by men, like say the Quran, and they are considering adding it, then there is something seriously wrong there.

I agree, but the Quran has never been accepted by Christians anywhere as canon.

>>706000

Assuming that you preserve that biblical teaching. Some of the things that Catholics believe are so foreign and contradictory to the scriptures that I'm sure if we got Paul and teleported him to the future he would freak out over the beliefs of the church. In fact we have the right to judge what doctrines have been given to us. Read acts 17:11:

>Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

If the berean Jews didn't just take Paul's word straight away and first examined his teachings to see if they are true or not, I can do the same with Catholicism. It seems to be a pattern among Catholics and orthodox alike that the main reason why they seek to stay in their church isn't necessarily because of scriptural reasons but rather because he desire to have some authority figure over them or they are attracted to the idea of being a part of a long existing church. No one in their right mind would would read the bible and then come to the conclusions that rome does. YOu need to already accept a tradition before you get that. Which also brings to question why God would give us a book that no one could possibly understand.

>>706504

>rome

I think the poster you're replying to is Orthodox lad. We broke communion with Rome 1000 years ago.

>>706502

>I agree, but the Quran has never been accepted by Christians anywhere as canon.

Neither has anything but the 66 books of scripture. Trust me, I would know. Because I am one.

>How do you determine whether they were correct or not?

Whether or not it lines up with the word of God. At the end of the day, God's word is the final authority. I and many others find this truth to be self-evident; the fact that it's the word of God and the fact that it's the truth.

—

If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. - 1 John 5:9-10

Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. - John 6:68

>>706516

>Neither has anything but the 66 books of scripture.

Can you substantiate this?

>Whether or not it lines up with the word of God.

How does Tobit or Maccabees for example, not line up with the Word of God exactly? Have you read these books, or did you hear from men that these books are not canon?

>>706514

It can apply to them too. Also, that makes it all the more worse since simply saying "join the 2000 year old church" confuses people since there are tons of churches that claim apolicity. EO, RCC, ACoE, Oriental etc…

>>705982

A lot of Biblical scholars use this method and come to very different conclusions, most of which in fact turn Christianity into a joke and a tribal polytheist Middle-Eastern religion turned into a Zoroastrian-Hebrew mix turned into a failed apocalyptic cult that caught on. So who do you trust, since there are many interpretations even using this method?

>>706641

Do you understand Orthodox theology?

>>706656

Only the parts that make it distinct from Roman Catholicism. For example their ecclesiology, distinction of essence and energies of God as well as certain cultural differences. They're very mystic as opposed to the more systematic and legalistic west.

>>706650

Just because a few scholars come to a different conclusion doesn't mean the word of God is unclear. In fact when you start talking to these people you'll realise that in fact the reason why you have differing views is because they are not applying sola scriptura correctly but rather have other authorities or the wrong presuppositions. I'll give you an example. Anthony buzzard in his debate he was arguing against the trinity and at certain points in the debate you saw leakages as to the real reason why he denied the trinity. They were because of rationalist reasons. He couldn't accept the idea that our God is triune and this was his stumbling block. Another less seriousness example would be with arminians. They deny Calvinism but it's always to do with emotional reasons or rational ones. They can barely defend their position but the fact that God is sovereign hurts them so bad that they outright deny this true biblical fact.

You see where I'm going with this? The scriptures are fine and pure but it's man who must first be sincere like the berean Jews if they are to understand what the bible teaches:

acts 17:11:

>Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

>>706853

There's also many liturgical distinctions as well, but I think our view of salvation is what really separates us besides the obvious issue of the position and authority of the bishop of Rome.

>>706863

Doesn't this sort of beg the question? What did the Berean Jews believe was Scripture? What did Paul?

I'd also point out that the writers of the Scripture didn't believe in sola scriptura, we can see this from the Scripture itself. Throughout the Old Testament many extrabiblical books are referenced in order to back up or give context to what is written. Even in the New Testament Jude (1:9) references a story from tradition about Satan and the archangel Michael fighting over the body of Moses, he takes this to be true despite it being found nowhere else in Scripture. He later goes on to quote from the Book of Enoch, which he also takes to be true.

I'm not saying Enoch is Scripture (it's not), just making a point for the sake of argument.

>>706899

>What did the Berean Jews believe was Scripture?

Most definitely the OT since that was what they used to confirm if the contents of the new revelations were true.

>What did Paul?

>I'd also point out that the writers of the Scripture didn't believe in sola scriptura, we can see this from the Scripture itself.

It's more tricky since Paul was living in a time when revelations were still being revealed. They didn't believe in sola scriptura in the same way we did since they also had the word of God in oral form and it was also preached that way. But this does not mean that they didn't know what was and wasn't scripture. In 2 Peter 3:16 Peter refers to Paul's writing as scripture:

<He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

>Throughout the Old Testament many extrabiblical books are referenced in order to back up or give context to what is written.

I'm familiar with the arguments raised but do not feel as though they take away from the authority of the bible. These can be classified as unclear verses where their purpose isn't quite clear and even you agree that it quotes verses that aren't even scripture such as the book of enoch. This then leads us to use a very basic exegetical approach where we take a unclear verse and read it In light of a clear verse. The clear verse would be 1 Corinthians 4:6 where it states:

<Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.

<Do not go beyond what is written

This makes it clear that we are to not go beyond the revealed revelations and we can go back to those verses where the bible quotes uninspired text or at least unknown references and say that it's probably for moral reasons. Again this does not take away from the authority of scripture.

>>706944

I'm not attempting to take away from the authority of Scripture, only to define what Scripture actually is.

>Most definitely the OT since that was what they used to confirm if the contents of the new revelations were true.

I agree, but what constituted the OT was up in the air even during those times. The Pharisees and Sadducees, who were two major sects within Judaism, disagreed on whether the Prophets were Scripture. While some Jews considered Psalms to be Scripture, others didn't, etc.

This controversy follows us even to this day with Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants all disagreeing on what constitutes the OT (but not the NT, thank God). What I'm saying is that there was no set canon of Scripture during those times on which all could agree.

>In 2 Peter 3:16 Peter refers to Paul's writing as scripture

This indicates that the writings of Paul are to be considered Scripture, but it doesn't make clear what the OT is exactly, or even other NT books for that matter.

>Do not go beyond what is written

Here Paul definitely is speaking of the OT, but the question remains: what did Paul believe was OT? What are we as Christians to believe?

>>706960

>only to define what Scripture actually is.

Oh, scripture define themselves but we discover what they are through tradition. Now I actually believe in tradition just not as the ultimate authority. It plays a important role even in reformed theology but I see it more as a identifer rather than an authority in itself. Tradition is what identifies what is and isn't scripture. This also coincides with the statements from the ante nicean fathers. To quote Michael Kruger's Heresy of orthodoxy, he states "The church fathers saw their role propagators or conduits of this unified and unifying theological standard. They used the nomenclature of "handing down" to describe their role." Kruger then goes on to give examples from Irenaeus, Clement of rome and Ignatius of Antioch to support his belief. So tradition takes a passive role in telling us what is and isn't scripture.

>I agree, but what constituted the OT was up in the air even during those times.

Not really, when Christ was talking to the Pharisees in Mark 7:8

<You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”

The fact that He could condemn them for not following the scriptures, which implies they had a unified scripture He could hold them accountable to, also tells us that Christ believed that all things were under the authority of what is written, EVEN YOUR TRADITION! This is why we say you Catholics and orthodox are following the traditions of men. It's because what you believe isn't found in scripture but rather your traditions which make the scriptures void. I mean, I mean, imagine if the Jews turned around and said "that's just your private interpretation and it goes against our rabbis and tradition." And imagine if they went further and said " where in the bible does it say the bible is the ultimate authority? " sound familiar? The authority of the bible was axiomatic and didn't need one clear cut verse although I think 2 Timothy 3:16 is clear but we can get to that later.

I'll go on. We know that the Canon we had then is the same one we have now because of Luke 24:44:

<Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”

Now, I want you to look closely at the words "the Law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms." This was the entirety of the OT. The law of Moses referred to the 5 books that make up the Torah the prophets were the minor prophets of the OT and the psalms unlike today, referred to more than simply the book of psalms but rather a collection of OT books. Over all this makes up the OT cannon. No apocrypha, no book of enoch just the same 66 books that Martin Luther believed in.

And we read in Romans 3:2:

<Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.

This is a statement about the Jews that who were entrusted with the oracles of God. This is referring to the OT and never do we have Christ condemning the Jews for their Canon in the OT.

>Here Paul definitely is speaking of the OT

Oh, so we're allowed to go beyond the new testament but not the old testament. Interesting.

>>706986

>Oh, scripture define themselves but we discover what they are through tradition. Now I actually believe in tradition just not as the ultimate authority. It plays a important role even in reformed theology but I see it more as a identifer rather than an authority in itself. Tradition is what identifies what is and isn't scripture. This also coincides with the statements from the ante nicean fathers. To quote Michael Kruger's Heresy of orthodoxy, he states "The church fathers saw their role propagators or conduits of this unified and unifying theological standard. They used the nomenclature of "handing down" to describe their role." Kruger then goes on to give examples from Irenaeus, Clement of rome and Ignatius of Antioch to support his belief. So tradition takes a passive role in telling us what is and isn't scripture.

I think we're basically in complete agreement here. I would only add that the councils of the Church made official and clear-cut what may have been in question by some.

>Not really, when Christ was talking to the Pharisees

When He spoke to the Pharisees He rebuked them with what they themselves believed to be Scripture. In another passage, when He was challenged by the Sadducees on the resurrection, He rebuked them with the Torah.

Now we know that Christ believed that the Law, Prophets, and Psalms were Scripture since He quotes directly from them. But the fact remains that there was no consensus among the Jews at that time since the Pharisees and Sadducees believed in two different sets of Scripture.

>It's because what you believe isn't found in scripture but rather your traditions which make the scriptures void.

What do I believe?

>the psalms unlike today, referred to more than simply the book of psalms but rather a collection of OT books

Which books exactly? Do you have sources for this? I'm open to being corrected.

>Oh, so we're allowed to go beyond the new testament but not the old testament. Interesting.

You're allowed to do whatever you want lad :^).

But I think it's clear here that Paul is speaking of the OT, since the NT hadn't been written yet, but I do think that what he said applies to the NT as well.

>>706650

>most of which in fact turn Christianity into a joke and a tribal polytheist Middle-Eastern religion turned into a Zoroastrian-Hebrew mix turned into a failed apocalyptic cult that caught on

You wouldn't even read a wikipedia article…

>>705811

>"went off the rails".

Yes, and you can even read it in the letters in the bible. The church or more the churches started very quickly to go off rails. But it would be more accurate to say that there was never 1 rail to begin with, but christ giving a direction and others trying to adopt it.

For example, the early church was very "jewish", and onw section was even pharaseeical, which lead to the conflict which involved paul. So while the apostle where still heading the church, you had many parties and fractions. Then you even have examples where the apostles went off track (peter) to suit a certain direction. In galations we even have the example of paul warning the church of galations from false brothers that preach a very pharasees direction but at the same time chriticising them for integrating their former pagan beliefs into the faith.

So in my opinion there was no real unified church faith, but only a collection of faiths which interpreted the faith in their culture. The apostles having authority where herding them, but even them where kicked out of churches and assemblys for disagreeing on things.

So after the apostles died you had many directions of the faith, and their size or longevity is independant of their truthfullness. No current church is "true", no current church is a direct decendant of the original "church". All that is are local adaptations of the faith.

If you really want to follow the truth, you would need to abandon any affiliation to any group or faith system and strickty follow the teaching, even going against your own costoms.

But I can tell you that this only works in personal life, i was once involved in the founding of a local christian assembly, with the intention of only teaching and accepting the biblical teachings. In the end I had to leave because people wanted to adapt their views, costoms and tradition regardless of biblical teachings. Thats the same the apostle had to fight, the urge of humans to adopt and integrate. Instead thet we grt adopted, we want to adopt.

>>707029

Do you believe that Holy Spirit guides the Church? Why in Acts 15 when the Apostles and elders of the Church deliberated on the issue of judaizing that it says "it seemed good the the Holy Spirit and to us"?

>>707039

*to the Holy Spirit

>>707029

If I where to design a graph like in op pic, I would not be able to do it in 2 dimensions. I would need 3D.

For example, orthodox and catholic are not more off, but the one has a greek influence while the other has a roman influence. So becuase christ was nether roman or greek in his ideas, both are off, but roman is not better or worse than greek, for both are foreign to thr gospel. The only correlation would be how much of the original thought they maintained and which they substituted. At the same there is no one catholic strand. Even among the catholic church there are many flavors, each having their own philosophy and traditions, those also get you closer or farther away from the turth.

So the graph would be many trees going off into diffrent cultures, the more of the culture gets integrated the less truthfull that branch is.

Church went off the rails with the bishop of Rome. I'm not even Orthodox, and even I think they're right about that.

>>707039

Dont missundèrstand, pharacees are their own religous sect which developed. The jews during jesus times had many diffrent religous groups. The conflict at that time the apostles tried to solve was not if jewish religion is bad, but what teachings are incorrect.

I will give you a example. You have in the catholic church many groups/orders. Now you get new converts and than the benedict order says, we have to tell the new converts to live poorly. This might be a problem for some converts and other orders say there is no law that one must live in poverty. In a conference the church body then agrees, that there is no spiritual requirement to live according to the eaching of a certain church order.

This was the same at this jeruslaem conference, it was not about abandoning jewishness, but about rejecting claims of a certain seect/order.

Because for example we read later in acts 21, that there where still many believers in jerusalem that lived strictly to the law and followed the costoms from moses. And paul should join them to appease those that had heard untrue rumors about paul.

pump

>>707000

>I think we're basically in complete agreement here. I would only add that the councils of the Church made official and clear-cut what may have been in question by some.

I don't think ecumenical councils are infallible though.

>But the fact remains that there was no consensus among the Jews at that time since the Pharisees and Sadducees believed in two different sets of Scripture.

Actually, this is wrong. Roger beckwith wrote a book on the OT canon. If you do decide to read it just bare in mind that it's a really dry read and made for academics and not people looking for something entertaining. Also, in Romans 3:2 the word for entrusted in the greek (pisteuó) is also used in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 to describe how the apostles were entrusted with the gospel. This would imply that they were aware of what the gospel was. Same goes with the Jews, they were aware of what their holy books were. This is something they're never criticised for. Do you have any evidence that there was no consensus among the early Jews regarding their Canon.

>What do I believe?

Rosary, sacred heart, priestly celibacy, papacy, marian dogmas, relics, synergism, indulgences, intercessory prayers of the dead saints, the idea that Saints are only those the church confirms are in heave etc. I'm sure I can think of more but do you believe that this is truly a part of the once for all faith delivered to the saints as stated in Jude 1:3

<Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

>Which books exactly? Do you have sources for this? I'm open to being corrected.

It's in General Introduction: The Books of the New Testament. Also, Jews have the same three gold division that comprise of the Tanakh, from the first letters of the Hebrew Torah (the Law), Nevi’im (the Prophets) and Kethuvim (the Writings, which begin with the book of Psalms).

>But I think it's clear here that Paul is speaking of the OT, since the NT hadn't been written yet, but I do think that what he said applies to the NT as well.

Yes, it does apply to the NT and we cannot go beyond it. Also, as I stated earlier the apostles didn't believe in sola scriptura the same way we do today. They lived in a time when scripture was still being revealed. This didn't give them the right to then add on to scripture but just that they did not yet have the full canon. During that time the bible existed in oral form, tradition and writing.

I have another general question for protestants: do you regard the writings of the "fathers" of your church (Luther, Calvin, Wesley, etc.) to be helpful in guiding your interpretation of Scripture and doctrine? Do you consider what they say to be authoritative?

>>707400

They would only be authoritative in that they hold true to scripture. We don't just believe John Calvin because he's John Calvin. He wrote a very thorough and scriptural defense of his position and that's why it became popular. Luther was more of a revolutionary. He made great strides but wouldn't say he was as scripturally literate as John Calvin. But nevertheless he was absolutely great.

>>707455

>They would only be authoritative in that they hold true to scripture.

You know, we have that same sentiment when it comes to our fathers as well.

I actually like a lot of John Calvin's theology. His view on the Eucharist is strikingly similar to the Orthodox when he says the Eucharist is "a secret too sublime for my mind to understand or words to express. I experience it rather than understand it." We normally refer to the Eucharist, and all the sacraments, as Mysterion, and reject attempts to try and explain these things rationally.

God is the only one who is really "right" at the end of the day anyway.

>>705860

Hussites are mostly Catholic apart from them disputing the Pope. Only the extreme anabaptist tier ones could be said to be "proto-protestant".

When did the church "went off the rails"? The absolutism here is misleading, because if you read the epistles of the NT, you would recognize that congregations had multiple issues regarding the faith and leadership (Looking at you, Corinth). So, the remnant's holiness is not dependent upon location, or those governing them, (although they are important), rather the commitment towards God's decree and love.

Once your senses are open to this, you'd realize that you have to look at pieces of the 'rails' individually. For all we know the true faith after the apostle departure was only located in some obscure village in the middle of nowhere for the last ~2000y.

Of course, we have the words of our Marker at hand, but just because we have the scriptures doesn't mean we haven't swayed to the board road. Only when we test whether our subservience of the HS is honest, we are aligned with Christ.

>>705867

>the trail of blood theory states that Baptists come from Cathars

>Hey man come on I believe in the Trail of Blood

>So you believe your ecclesiological community stems from Gnostics?

>LMAO DUDE Y U CALLING ME A GNOSTIC !?!?!!

Come on man…

>>705926

That's because he knows that he couldn't find any before John Smyth, and his attempt to abstract the theory out of the insanity that was the original theory proposed by J.M Carrol just shows how obviously bs the theory is.

I'm Catholic (or at least I claim to be, since I believe that only one church is possible) but at the same time I have the feeling that the Church got some things wrong almost since the beginning. I still believe that the faith is genuine and all the secondary stuff will be purged.

>>707597

I'm not watching your Youtube video, but the author is grossly wrong about Augustine based on the thumbnail and the assumption he is in agreement with you. This is obvious from his attitude to the Donatist controversy. Augustine said that the Donatists were not heretics, and that their beliefs were correct. And the Donatist clergy could have reasonably claimed a greater fidelity, since the controversy was occassioned by certai Catholic priests denying the faith in the face of persecution. However, Augustine said that the Donatists were schismatics and that they separated themselves from the communion of the Catholic Church, outside of which it is impossible to find salvation. So, yes, Augustine's view of the Church could very much be described as one of "bureaucratic authority" understood in this sense. Even if you adhere to all the beliefs and practices of the Catholic Church, if you go off and do your own thing without the approval of the appropriate authority of the institutional Church, then you are not part of the Catholic Church, period.

>>713990

Then you're acting the Fool. If the Church does not have the full inheritance of Apostolic Succession and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, then it is simply not the Church.

Moreover, if the Catholic Church is not the Church, then Jesus Christ could not be God, because there is no other Church that could be His, meaning Hell has prevailed since the beginning.

There is no lukewarmness allowed here.