/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>777234

Actually, John Calvin didn't believe he was introducing anything new and regularly cited the fathers in his Institutes.

If you read some of the fathers (especially Augustine) you see some of the doctrines that the Reformation formally named.

Here's some selected quotations to prove my point: https://www.apuritansmind.com/arminianism/calvinism-in-the-early-church-the-doctrines-of-grace-taught-by-the-early-church-fathers/

>holy tradition

Not even the so-called "apostolic" churches agree on that.

Both Rome and the East disagree on dogmas (to name a few, Purgatory, Original Sin, the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility, etc,),

That's not even counting how the Oriental Orthodox factor into this.

>>777235

>on holy tradition

Yes mostly certainly, ultimately one of the apostolic branches has to be wrong, that's why it's important to study how both Churches have perceived and applied the holy tradition which is merely what I was saying, they also fundementally disagree on how holy tradition meant to be perceived.

I knew the RCC was very fond of Augustine but I wasn't aware Calvin was too, I'll give your article a read in a while friend thanks.

>>777236

The thing is, both of them can draw out huge amounts of quotes from the fathers to justify their positions.

For me, and other Reformed Christians, to be an apostolic church is to maintain apostolic teaching (that is, the core of Christian faith contained in the Gospel).

After all, in the wake of the first council of Nicaea, there were subsequent councils that defended Arianism. How were the Christians of the day to determine which view of Christ was proper? Athanasius advised to turn to Scripture.

Calvin was also quite fond of Chrysostom, actually.

Besides Augustine, he's the second-most cited father in the Institutes.

>>777234

I think most of the other people in this thread have adequately answered the question but I'll give my own answer that is more accustomed to the way I like answers phrased and given to me.

First of all, the reformation was called a reformation for a reason. None of the reformers thought that they were bringing in some cool new doctrine that was supposed to bring people away from the church. Rather, they thought that they needed to reform the church because it had headed into the wrong direction by making their tradition or church their ultimate authority as opposed to the bible. This is why when a lot of Protestants read the Bible for the first time they don't see Catholicism or Eastern orthodoxy. Those things could only have come out by centuries of development and the Cathodox church of today would have looked alien to the Jerusalem apostles. Both in ecclesiology and doctrine.

Now, we don't deny the early church fathers, we even quote them but at the same time we understand that the Scriptures are our ultimate authority and that we must judge all things by it. I get the appeal of Cathodoxy. You want to be a part of this continuous chain but at the same time you have to understand that there is a difference between wanting to be a part of the true church and following a man made tradition. In mark 7:8 Christ says:

>You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”

Here we see that Christ condemns the Pharisees for forcing their people to follow the traditions of men. You have to understand that even the Pharisees had a long tradition that they thought extended back to Moses. Even if it is false their appeal to tradition was the same as Catholics and when Christ came on the scene it shook them. How dare this man question our tradition. I'm sure the Jews had some succession like the Cathodox have but still, if it goes beyond what is written as 1 Corinthians 4:6 states then it isn't true Christianity but the tradition of men.

>>777234

This is a really good website about the history leading up to the Reformation:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/04/historical-roots-of-reformation-and.html

They're Calvinists, so there's obviously some bias there, but they're usually really good about citing a wide range of sources for their claims.

>>777235

>Actually, John Calvin didn't believe he was introducing anything new and regularly cited the fathers in his Institutes

That was the position of almost all the reformers, except for maybe the anabaptists. They thought they were reactionaries, not revolutionaries. They viewed themselves as being apart of the same church founded by the Apostles, even though they broke away from Rome, just like the Eastern Orthodox. Speaking of the Orthodox Church, the Anglican/Episcopal Church was even in communion with the Russian Orthodox Church until they started ordaining fags. I've also heard that certain Orthodox churches consider Lutheran baptisms to be valid and that John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist Church, was ordained by an Orthodox Bishop in exile, but I don't know how true either of those claims are.

>>777260

What is with the Anabaptists that's different?

Also can I uuhhh get any sort source on the latter statement regarding the ROC and the Anglicans, the very first ecumenical approaches between the two Churches began in the 60s and they never were in communion to my knowledge.

>>777234

>No offence lads, obviously there's a lot more to denominations than something this superficial but it seems so basic to me that the Church that came first has to be the rightful one.

This is /christian/ not /zoroastrian/

>>777266

>implying

Church exclusively refers to the local congregation.

>>777260

>the Anglican/Episcopal Church was even in communion with the Russian Orthodox Church until they started ordaining fags

Not true. There were discussions about the Anglicans rejoining the Church, but it was actually the First World War and the Russian Revolution that ended those meetings. The Anglicans didn't ordain fags until much later in the 20th century.

>>777234

Not a prot but >thinking the age of a church matters at all to God

>>777384

>thinking the age of a church matters at all to God

When protestants claim to be the historical christian church, it's a relevant point. Especially given that we have documents discussing apostolic tradition going all the way back to 100 AD.

>>777250

This. The protestants hold the Bible, instead of the traditions of man, as the final authority, which is what the Bible even tells us to do in 1 Timothy 3:16-17. The catholic church got away from that by making doctrines such as papal infallibility, which aren't scriptural.

>>777483

2 Thes 15

>"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."

>traditions

>>777486

Also

>word of mouth

Which implies that they might not be written in the Bible.

And this is why I became catholic through reading scripture. And tradition they have that doesn't necessarily have a written biblical basis can be sourced to verses like this. And we have sources like the Didache going all the way back to 100 AD documenting a ton of these traditions.

>>777487

1 Corinthians 11:2

>I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

2 Thessalonians 3:6

>Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

>living in idleness

>not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

IE Don't follow those who aren't following the following traditions handed down by the apostles both in written scripture and word of mouth.

AKA: EVERY PROTESTANT SECT UNDER THE SUN.

>>777489

>>777486

Another good one, matthew 12:22-32:

>22 Then a blind and dumb demoniac was brought to him, and he healed him, so that the dumb man spoke and saw. 23 And all the people were amazed, and said, “Can this be the Son of David?” 24 But when the Pharisees heard it they said, “It is only by Be-el′zebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons.” 25 Knowing their thoughts, he said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand; 26 and if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? 27 And if I cast out demons by Be-el′zebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. 28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. 29 Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house. 30 He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. 31 Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Protestants who are anti-catholic will not be forgiven.

>>777502

It's always been funny to me as someone who came to the Catholic Church through reading scripture (KJV no less) how this stuff seemingly flies over protestants heads, given how much they all claim to read the Bible. Things like this, the Primacy of Peter, the necessity of works and faith, the Eucharist, Mary being honored as Mother of God and as the Queen of Heaven in Luke and Revelations, the necessity Baptism, The ability to go astray, etc., all seemed blatantly obvious to me. It's hard for me to imagine any other conclusions, and yet here we are. and the explanations I have heard don't make sense to me and/or seem like really round about excuses rather than actual explanations

They took Jesus' rebuke of the Elders (Matthew 15, Mark 7) in the wrong direction, and assumed all traditions must be evil and come from men. This despite Paul telling us the opposite, and acknowledging that the Apostles had their own traditions separate from the one in the Talmud and Torah.

>>777517

Yeah it blows my mind. I mean like a third of the gospel is pretty much just Jesus and Peter's bromance, and another third us "be united." Plus you consider how aesthetic Catholicism is and I don't know why anyone wouldn't want to be Catholic. I just assume it's spite and/or pride.

>>777486

Why don't you quote the entire passage there?

Here, let me save you the trouble:

>2 Thessalonians 2: 13-15

But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

You see here, then, that Paul is referring to his preaching the Gospel to the Thessalonians, and considering that Revelation from God was in the process of being written, Apostolic teaching at this time was still binding by word of mouth until it was written under the auspices of the Holy Spirit.

Not only that, but the concept of Divine Election/Predestination is clearly taught in this passage.

You can't tell me that every single thing Rome teaches as de fide today (Transubstantiation, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, Purgatory, Indulgences, Papal Infallibility, Papal Supremacy, the Bodily Assumption of Mary, etc.) were believed and taught by Paul to the Thessalonians at this time.

They were clearly developed over time and were added on by the decrees of popes up and down the ages.

>>777487

And how do we test this tradition? By what standard do we test this supposed oral tradition?

After all, not even the so-called Apostolics are in concordance with one another.

>I became catholic through reading scripture

Funny, I abandoned rome through the exact same process.

Are you aware that the first appeal to "apostolic tradition" was to defend the idea that the Lord Jesus died at the age of 50?

I'll be addressing your other posts in a bit.

>>777489

Now, let's take a look at these two passages to reveal their full context:

>1 Corinthians 11: 2

In the preceding chapter, Paul warns the Corinthians from previous examples (namely the Israelites in the wilderness) not to fall into idolatry or immorality.

He exhorts them to be steadfast in the Lord from the Gospel he preached, which is the tradition he has passed on to them.

>2 Thessalonians 3: 6

The idleness Paul here is speaking of is exactly that: idleness. Not working. Expecting to received charity without effort.

The tradition he here speaks of is the example he left them, namely that when he was among them he worked to earn his bread despite not having an obligation to.

He tells them that "if any one will not work, let him not eat", instructing them that the normative principle for believers is to work for their living instead of being louts.

How amazing it is, then, that the Papist will read into this passage of Holy Write the numerous fantasies they've invented.

>>777502

As for this passage, I do not say that Roman Catholics drive out demons by the power of Satan.

It may be that God, in His mercy, uses the prelates of Rome to deliver someone from demonic oppression.

Nonetheless, I believe that Rome has obfuscated the Gospel, adding on too many things they require to believe if you have any desire to be saved.

>Protestants who are anti-catholic will not be forgiven

And what of Eastern Orthodox who are anti-catholic?

And Oriental Orthodox?

And Syriac Christians?

They all remonstrate with Rome for different reasons, yet you're not as quick to condemn them to Gehenna, though your former popes did.

>>777517

If you perhaps allowed the Scriptures to speak for themselves instead of shoe-horning the doctrines of Rome into it, you might not be as convinced.

Ironically enough, many of the fathers disagreed with your doctrines. Even more so, Rome gives definite dates after which you must believe something if you want to be saved.

The bodily assumption of Mary was defined as dogma in the 1950s.

Before that, you could have denied it and been a faithful Roman Catholic. Afterwards? You MUST believe it to by saved according to Rome.

And what new dogmas will come in 50 years? 100 years? 500 years?

How many new dogmas must Rome add to the Gospel before you say "no, this is wrong, this isn't the faith".

>the Church that came first has to be the rightful one.

Become a jew then.

>>777521

Peter certainly had a special role to play among the Apostles, but Papists seem to think that every mention of Peter MUST be referring to the Pope.

Let me ask, if all it takes to be the Pope is to be the successor of Peter, is the Bishop of Rome the only one?

For even the bishops of Antioch claimed Apostolic foundation from Peter.

One of the Fathers (Cyprian, if I recall correctly) taught that all bishops sat on the throne of Peter and hold his position.

>be united

There is not unity in Roman Catholicism. Liberals, abortionists, universalists, sodomy enablers, and other sordids types haunt your ranks.

And if even the Apostles had to deal with unruly types who wouldn't hold to the Gospel, how much less can we expect to be free from dissenters and heretics?

>appealing to aesthetics to defend Papism

Ah yes, the "smells and bells" approach.

If your faith hinges on how "nice" a service looks, perhaps you're not looking for salvation, but a nice place to go every Sunday.

Would you have been scandalized in the Apostolic age, when Christians gathered in houses and shared the bread and wine by hand? No incense, no flowing gilded robes, no ornate buildings, no pomp?

>>777537

The Talmud wasn't written til the Middle Ages though.

>>777541

Not all Jews hold to the Talmud.

There are some (Karaites) who hold the Tanakh to be the sole, infallible rule of faith.

Ironically, Karaites are to Protestants what Rabbinic Jews are to Roman Catholics/Eastern Orthodox

>>777525

>You see here, then, that Paul is referring to his preaching the Gospel to the Thessalonians, and considering that Revelation from God was in the process of being written, Apostolic teaching at this time was still binding by word of mouth until it was written under the auspices of the Holy Spirit.

…What about the possibility that he brought them the gospel and traditions?… That's not invalidated by the rest of the passage. Also, why them wasn't Paul's gospel ever written down? Or every Apostle's gospel for that matter? There are redundant stories among them, and some exclusive to each, so it's not like that had anything to do with it… You're basically openly acknowledging that there are things the apostles could have taught that aren't written in the bible.\

>Not only that, but the concept of Divine Election/Predestination is clearly taught in this passage

Catholics believe in predestination, just not the same predestination that you do. Obviously god has writen out and knows the course of all events, no catholic will deny that. as such who will and who won't believe in the word of God is redetermined and known by god… but that doesn't mean men don't have free will. Predestination is divine foresight in the Church.

>You can't tell me that every single thing Rome teaches as de fide today

No, but the church is founded on the principles taught by the apostles and is guided by the holy spirit. Ergo, so long as later traditions don't violate the gospels, the NT epistles, or the traditions that were handed on to us they are valid. To think otherwise would be to say that god abandoned his church in its infancy.

>Transubstantiation

We have examples in the desert fathers of this belief, it's not new.

>the Immaculate Conception of Mary

Mary was made pure in line with the ark of the covenant and the tabernacles of old. After all what is pure cannot be born of what is impure. God would not take his flesh from imperfection.

>Indulgences

Bind and loose… we've had this discussion a thousand time at this point.

>Papal Infallibility

While Peter needed council from the other Apostles, he still had authoritative final say in the end.

>Papal Supremacy

Goes back to peter being the first apostle, the first to confess Jesus as the Messiah, the one asked to shepherd the flock, the first to preach after Pentecost, etc. etc. again, we've had this discussion before.

>the Bodily Assumption of Mary

"But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle that she might fly from the serpent into the wilderness, to the place where she is to be nourished for a time, and times, and half a time."

>believed and taught by Paul to the Thessalonians at this time.

Well, the Assumption might not have happened yet… but the rest, easily could have. and were

>And how do we test this tradition? By what standard do we test this supposed oral tradition?

By the fact that it's endured for 2000 years despite frequent opposition from worldly forces.

>Funny, I abandoned rome through the exact same process.

It's sad that you were led astray by ignorance… the door is always open though

>>777528

>He exhorts them to be steadfast in the Lord from the Gospel he preached, which is the tradition he has passed on to them.

Nothing in his phrasing implies that the Gospel is the only tradition he passed onto them… hence why I used the example in the first place.

>Not working. Expecting to received charity without effort.

Yes… he's describing the tradition of needing to work… but again, nothing in his phrasing suggests that that was the only tradition the Apostles taught them. Also of note, there is no mention of this tenant in the Gospels that Paul is supposedly referring to in all of these letters.

>>777555

Double trips confirm my response

>>777534

Saying that Catholics drive out demons by the power of Satan isn't the only way you can blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, it's just an example. If you deny any of the works of the Holy Spirit, such as baptism, you are also blaspheming.

>>777540

>Ah yes, the "smells and bells" approach.

>If your faith hinges on how "nice" a service looks, perhaps you're not looking for salvation, but a nice place to go every Sunday.

Ah yes, the "beauty is bad, be an ugly ascetic or you're vain" approach.

Mark 14 3-9

>And while he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at table, a woman came with an alabaster flask of ointment of pure nard, very costly, and she broke the flask and poured it over his head. 4 But there were some who said to themselves indignantly, “Why was the ointment thus wasted? 5 For this ointment might have been sold for more than three hundred denarii,[a] and given to the poor.” And they reproached her. 6 But Jesus said, “Let her alone; why do you trouble her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 7 For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you will, you can do good to them; but you will not always have me. 8 She has done what she could; she has anointed my body beforehand for burying. 9 And truly, I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her.”

>>777568

>implying that not vainly showing off is ugly or ascetic

>implying anointing Christ's body for burial means you should observe man-made vanities

>>777250

Based and redpilled

>>777588

>Implying that the aesthetic of the church is for showing off and not for glorifying god

You guys know that vestments aren't worn by priests 24/7 right? They only wear them during service, and then just where either a cassock or black shirt and pants all other times. They "ornamentals" aren't for showing off or personal vanity. They are for honoring God, especially since Christ is made present in the Eucharist.

Last I checked the idea of dressing up for church wasn't a Catholic exclusive thing. The difference is we have the actual presence of Christ in mass, while y'all just get together and make conjecture about the parts of scripture you like.

Also, for anyone curious, the account in the desert fathers about Transubstantiation involves a monk questioning the real presence in the Eucharist to his elders, and then being shown a vision of Christ's body on the cross being sliced and broken and his blood drained and having it handed to him. After being initially disgusted, the flesh and blood take the form of bread and wine, with his elders telling him that while Christ is present in the Eucharist he would never force his followers to commit cannibalism, and so he takes the form of bread and wine. And this was recorded around 300 AD, with such a simple and obvious answer… Now we have entire books on the subject and protestants still refuse to believe it.

>>777601

Incorrect, the Orthodox Church was founded by Jesus Christ Himself. The First Baptist Church of Anywereville USA was founded by Pastor Bob in 1952 because he thinks he understands the KJV (1611) better than Pastor Jim down the road.

The Mary thing makes me very uncomfortable queen of heaven, but the protestants acceptance of everything worldly makes me even as uncomfortable, so I don't go to church at all. I have the word of God and my faith, I need nothing else.

>>777611

That's because you don't know what salvation is, and what Christ actually did. God came into this world through his own creation, Mary a created human bore the infinite logos in her womb within space and time. God's kingdom is a family, and we were created in the image of God and are called into eternity with him.

>>777623

>That's because you don't know what salvation is

From a non Catholic point of view, this is not helping which is what I assume you're trying to do.

>>777624

This however is helpful, my issue is specifically with the word Queen, its implies equal position with the King. If it means she was the perfect human woman, made by God with the intention to carry our Messiah, then that I can accept.

>in this way by her affirmation the sins of man could be undone, and humanity could be made whole again. And as Eve was taken from Adam, Christ was taken from Mary.

This makes a lot of sense,a +1 for each -1 to make things right. I'll pray on it, thanks anon.

>>777638

Yeah, it's understandably a bit difficult for people outside of the church, especially if you're coming from a protestant perspective. For me, I initially just read Luke and Revelations and assumed that was all there was to Mary's position in the church, which made enough sense to me at the time. It wasn't until I actually started studying Catholic Theology that I understood the higher level of intricacy.

I'd recommend "the Glories of Mary" by St. Alphonsus Liguori for a relatively brief rundown. It's basically the shortest and most concise book on the topic of Mary's role in the church I can recommend… and even then my copy is 176 pages, albeit with fairly large text. It cites scripture along with accounts of apparitions and the like though.

>>777640

Found a pdf and I'll read it, again thanks.

For anyone whos interested

http://www.themostholyrosary.com/the-glories-of-mary.pdf

>>777624

>because why would the church give birth to Christ?

Before Christ's death, the church was the people of Israel. Jesus was born among the people of Israel.

>>777543

Even so, a religion defined by rejection of Christ must necessarily be younger than the religion founded by Christ. The legitimate continuation of the proto-Christian religion of the Old Testament is Christianity, period.

>>777722

>Before Christ's death, the church was the people of Israel. Jesus was born among the people of Israel.

But Mary is among the people of Israel… so even with that logic it could still be her.

>>777725

It's also of note:

>in all of this Mary is shown to be the living example of the church. Her obedience, her purity, her submission, her wisdom are all examples for the church to follow. And Mary is the bride of the Holy Spirit, just as the Church is the bride of Christ.

With that in mind these perspectives are effectively synonymous. If Christ is born of Mary, he is also born of the church and of the people of Israel.

>>777638

>my issue is specifically with the word Queen, its implies equal position with the King

This is a modern Western interpretation. In the vast majority of kingdoms throughout history, the king was always superior to the queen. It's the same way in the Kingdom of Heaven, except amplified by infinity. Mary's greatness comes from her total submission to the will of God, and this is the greatest greatness that any mortal human being could ever hope to attain. Mary therefore cannot be equal to God because any greatness that she holds is entirely derivative of and submissive to the greatness of God. The same goes for any saint, holy man, prophet, preacher, theologian, or anyone else you might see get praise in Christian communities.

You've got to understand that human beings have more in common with earthworms than they do with God. You've got to understand that mighty archangels have more in common with earthworms than they do with God. God has no more need for the greatest of His creations than He has for the smallest of His creations. With this understanding in mind, there is no amount of praise you can heap onto Mary that equates her with God, because even though she is the greatest mortal human being who ever lived, God is still infinitely greater.

And saying that God is infinitely greater than Mary does not denigrate her, but compliments her. For if her greatness is even a small shadow of the infinite greatness of God, then surely she has the greatest greatness any mortal human being could ever hope to attain.

>>777487

>Which implies that they might not be written in the Bible.

Here is the bizarre interpretation that this verse was given as a proof text for (and the only reference to) secret teachings that were specifically not allowed to be written down but only ever to be taught orally.

The fact people could come to such an idea, that this is what was meant, is quite fascinating. And wrong, of course.

>>777489

>1 Corinthians 11:2

>2 Thessalonians 3:6

This is a reference to scripture, not to manmade traditions, though. This has already been established, there is not a gnostic "oral-only" doctrine that wasn't allowed to be written down. Nobody ever referenced the existence of such things in scripture. In fact in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 we see how all Scripture is able to make the man of God be perfect, with the meaning of complete. There's no reference to non-scripture there.

>>777537

Matthew 16:18 is still true though. You can't just start a cult out of nowhere just because you decided now was a good time and started throwing your own weight around. That's what caths did when they started pedo-baptism.

>>777624

I can buy all of that. I just don't *need* to come to her to come to Christ. We're allowed to petition Him directly.

Protestants should be burned at the stake. I hope the mods ban them all from this board.

>>777752

Are you having a giggle or do you really feel this way?

>>777754

I really feel this way. Protestants are heretics, they shouldn't even be considered Christians tbh since their doctrines and practices differ so much from the religion Jesus founded. I have a burning hatred for their movement. I am glad the mods are on our side and are cracking down on them though so that's good.

>>777741

Why would we go to one of the managers of a company when we have a direct access line and direct accountability with the CEO and owner, 24/7/365?

>>777748

>Here is the bizarre interpretation that this verse was given as a proof text for (and the only reference to) secret teachings that were specifically not allowed to be written down but only ever to be taught orally.

So either it was written down and lost which is contrary to your teachings as it would mean that divinely inspired scripture could be lost, or it was only ever taught orally which is also counter to your beliefs.

>This is a reference to scripture, not to manmade traditions, though.

Which is exactly why he goes on to describe in the following passage something that wasn't included in the gospels. Where does Jesus talk about head coverings again?

These traditions aren't man made, but divinely inspired. Hence we have records of them from 100 AD until now. Again, when Protestants claim to be the historic church, the age of your doctrines matter. How far back do we need to go? Did the church just go astray the minute revelations was finished?

>2 Timothy 3:16-17

>All scripture is inspired by God and[a] profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

<I say there are traditions not recorded in scripture

<Therefore I'm saying scripture isn't important in instructing the faithful

Again, nothing in that passage implies that there isn't more to the faith. It just reaffirms the importance of scripture, which I agree with. It's almost like I've spent most of this thread providing a scriptural basis for our teachings…

>I can buy all of that. I just don't *need* to come to her to come to Christ. We're allowed to petition Him directly.

Firstly Technically you're contacting him through the power of the holy spirit, not directly. Secondly, Marian intercession exists because she is of a higher standing than imperfect men as the perfect woman. It's an act of humility mirrored by the Wedding Feast. And likewise Mary's wish for you is to do whatever Christ instructs as was the case then. And yet, at the wedding feast Christ did not intervene until entreated by his Mother, despite seeing what was happening and knowing his destiny from time immemorial.

>When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” And Jesus said to her, “O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”

And the first miracle of Christ's ministry was preformed.

>>777755

>I have a burning hatred for their movement. I am glad the mods are on our side and are cracking down on them though so that's good.

Stop it. If we can't correct them, how could they ever be saved? It is good that they are here so that they might learn the true faith.

>>777764

Why would the boss need a secretary to get messages to him faster if he's omnipotent and omniscient? You can't make an analogy that rests on the limits of human ability to describe the all powerful nature of our Lord.

>>777787

What do you think of my response? Just wanna know since I'm more focused on scripture and doctrine.

>>777789

If you're talking about your response here >>777760 then my thoughts are below.

I understand where you're coming from with the first point about scripture VS tradition, but I still have a bit of a stumbling block there. We both agree scripture is sufficient for making a Christian, but you believe that there's other traditions not written in scripture that is necessary for salvation. You believe someone must be baptized, which is why you baptize babies. You believe people must take the eucharist, that people must confess their sins to a priest or they are not forgiven, and a few other things. The Bible says "call no man father", yet you call all of your clergy father. And I know the catholic response to that, you'll ask me if it's a sin to call my biological father, "father", but we'd both agree that's stupid logic. The Bible is saying to call no man father in a spiritual sense, for you only have one Father which is in heaven.

As for the head coverings remark, we don't believe that only what's in the gospel is necessary for salvation but that what is contained in scripture is necessary for salvation. I forget where at but I'm pretty sure there's a verse about head covering in the scripture.

Then you go on to say that you and the other anon both agree that scripture is sufficient, which is why you give scriptural arguments to support your position. But see my first point about calling no man father and the rest, I won't write it out again.

As for the Mary part, I'm kinda mixed. I don't hate Mary at all, I think she's great, but I don't know how I feel about praying to her (obviously, with my last post). I don't think you need to pray to her for God to hear you, He is omnipotent and omniscient after all. Also, the bodily assumption of Mary as a catholic doctrine (which wasn't dogma until the 1950s) would, from my understanding, place her as a divine person on par with Jesus, since Jesus was the only person to be assumed bodily into heaven (but He is God so that makes sense to me). She's important, yes, and the most perfect woman that's ever existed other than Eve herself, but to say she is divine on the level of Jesus to be assumed into heaven doesn't seem right to me.

>>777725

The rest of the chapter describes symbolic events that did not happen to Mary but did happen to the Church, so I'm afraid not.

>>777760

>So either it was written down and lost which is contrary to your teachings as it would mean that divinely inspired scripture could be lost, or it was only ever taught orally which is also counter to your beliefs.

Everything that is taught word of mouth is also recorded in scripture and the point isn't to say there is one doctrine meant to be written and one to be spoken only. The point, always, is to say that the same doctrine is equally valid whether spoken or written. So if I or anyone read 1 Corinthians 11 aloud it would be the same validity as if it were read directly.

>Where does Jesus talk about head coverings again?

All scripture is given by inspiration of God. So in 1 Corinthians 11 is where it's recorded for us. The same goes for all doctrine of Christ, just insert the correct Biblical reference.

>How far back do we need to go?

I'm not sure what exactly you mean. We all have the record that God gave of his Son. This is the one thing God exalted above all his name according to Psalm 138:2 and that on which the church was entrusted in Acts 20:32. That's what you must have to have life according to John 6:63 (not bread).

These are the true sayings of God. Not only that but they are eternally incorruptible, see 1 Peter 1:23-25 and Psalm 119:160. Also Proverbs 30:5-6, Isaiah 59:21, Matthew 24:35. The scripture cannot be broken according to John 10:35. The word shall not return void but shall accomplish its task according to Isaiah 55:11.

>Did the church just go astray the minute revelations was finished?

Not according to Matthew 16:18. But the spirit of antichrist was already present during the composition of the New Testament according to 1 John 2:18 and 1 John 4:3. They were already dealing with both Judaizers and gnostics who made up "oral traditions" after the manner of the Pharisees who were exposed in Mark 7:7-13 and are also prophesied against in places like 1 Timothy 4:1-3 and Galatians 6:13 and you had people making false accusations on the spot as we find in Acts 21:38 and Titus 1:10-11. Paul warned about them coming as soon as he would leave in Acts 20:29-31 right before entrusting them to God and his word in Acts 20:32. So its not like the state church of babylon was a total surprise when it arose. But fortunately despite all their efforts nobody was ever able to remove, change or replace the true word of God (that I'm referring to right now) and it remains as the best evidence to this day.

The question is always whether you were in it for God's word or not and whether you really do take it seriously, or you just write it off as something of lesser importance to manmade tradition, that can be ignored in favor of manmade traditions and new stuff that men come up with to keep you occupied. Forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats come to mind, as does idolatry, later innovations to baptism, idolatry, and works gospel.

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. — Colossians 2:8

>>777797

The whole doctrine is contrary to the Gospel.

But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. — Galatians 3:22

For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: — Romans 4:13-14

>But see my first point about calling no man father and the rest, I won't write it out again.

Yes there's that too. It really never ends the amount of complete 180 reversals they do of scripture. Turning it into a works gospel has absolutely got to be up there, as Galatians 1:8-9 makes clear. It can't be by grace and works if you believed Romans 11:6. At this point we could go to Romans 4:5, Ephesians 2:8-9, John 5:24, it really never ends.

>>777234

>appeal to tradition fallacy

Roman pagans made the same objections.

>>777797

>You believe someone must be baptized, which is why you baptize babies.

Christ himself was baptized and he and his apostles baptized the followers of the faith.

>After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized.

>I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances.

>You believe people must take the eucharist

>And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves; for I tell you that from now on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me. ” And likewise the cup after supper, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

Pretty explicit… and this is only Luke's version.

>hat people must confess their sins to a priest or they are not forgiven

Bind & loose… I feel like we have this discussion on a daily basis… It's not the priest who forgives your sins but god working through the sacraments, and the priest offers spiritual guidance and penance endowed by the holy spirit.

>The Bible says "call no man father", yet you call all of your clergy father.

We call God the Father in Heaven… We call priests father because they are our spiritual guides in the same manner as a Father or elder is to his children. We do not however elevate them above The Lord by any means.

>As for the head coverings remark, we don't believe that only what's in the gospel is necessary for salvation but that what is contained in scripture is necessary for salvation.

But the point I was making is that the claim I've received from Protestants is that when Paul refers to traditions he is speaking of the Gospel he preached in various regions. There's a mention of prophets and patriarchs covering their heads and faces before God, but Paul is teaching the exact opposite in that passage. And in many of his mentions of these traditions, he speaks as though they are things he has already told them and is referring back too. So like I said, either they weren't written down or were lost, either of which would contradict Sola Scriptura.

>Then you go on to say that you and the other anon both agree that scripture is sufficient

I affirmed that scripture is absolutely necessary for the faith. But Paul says it is "profitable" and necessary for "training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." Which is true, as without scripture your understanding and faith would be incomplete… that doesn't mean it's the only thing necessary for the faith though, only that without it the man of god is not complete. Saying that a man of god without scripture is not complete implies that there can be an a man of god without scripture who is not fully equipped. What would this man have were his learning in scripture absent?

Additionally, earlier in the same passage Paul states that

>"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

Here Paul states that the writings Whichever they may be if they even exist anymore Are able to instruct one in salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. Yet he also emphasizes his own role in instructing Timothy. Why, if scripture is enough on it's own, would Timothy need further instruction?

>I don't know how I feel about praying to her

It is a request for intercession, just like the prayer thread is here. The only difference is that the person we're asking is already in heaven, and is filled with far greater grace than any of us could ever hope to obtain.

>I don't think you need to pray to her for God to hear you

Which is why we aren't constantly asking for her to intercede for us. In fact, the celebration of the mass doesn't involve any evocation of Marian intercession unless it's one of her feast days.

>which wasn't dogma until the 1950s

I can assure you the belief itself is ancient. The book I recommended mentions it and it's from the 1700s. Again, like Transubstantiation, it's not a new thing.

>would, from my understanding, place her as a divine person on par with Jesus

Is Enoch on par with Jesus? Because he was taken up to heaven and he had the stain of Adam still on him.

>>777806

>Praying to Mary

Could you guys make up your mind whether you are praying to her or "venerating" her, its really difficult to try to wrap my head around this not being idolatry when Catholics sometimes claim "we pray to her but it isn't worship praying, its like having a conversation between people asking them to pray for them" and then sometimes claim "we don't pray to her we venerate her".

>>777802

>Everything that is taught word of mouth is also recorded in scripture

And you know this how? Were you there? Did you receive some divine revelation of the past? Are you telling me that Peter, Paul, Andrew and all of the other apostles outside of Matthew, Mark, and John never preached their own gospels? Because we don't have them written down anywhere. Which one of the 4 did they preach? For that matter, why do the Gospels differ in the first place if each apostle was meant to bring the same uniform message of Christ? Someone who was educated by Mark and Mark alone wouldn't know about the wedding feat according to his gospel. Likewise, Someone instructed by Matthew wouldn't know about the annunciation or Visitation.

>the point isn't to say there is one doctrine meant to be written and one to be spoken only

Correct, that's why we have examples written doctrine concerning tradition dating back to 100 AD.

The next point I take no issue with, because it has nothing to do with my argument.

>All scripture is given by inspiration of God.

Yes. but according to protestants Paul is referring to the Gospel he preached there. Since he's talking about head coverings in relation to that, that implies that something in his teachings pertained to it in the first place. So, either Matthew, Mark, Luke and John forgot to record Christ's teaching on the matter or it was lost to time, or Paul never recorded it in writing until 1 Corinthians 11, which would mean he taught them orally at a different time that wasn't recorded… Which opens up the possibility that the Apostles teachings weren't all recorded explicitly in scripture. The Process by which the biblical cannon was compiled was related to whether each text was legitimate after all, not that it was the only teachings of the faith.

>That's what you must have to have life according to John 6:63 (not bread).

John 6:54-56

Having already repeated the Last Supper

>The Lord is my chosen portion and my cup; thou holdest my lot.

>I will lift up the cup of salvation and call on the name of the Lord

>The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation[a] in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation[b] in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

>These are the true sayings of God. Not only that but they are eternally incorruptible

I have never said otherwise

>1 Peter 1:23-25

"That word is the good news which was preached to you." Not transcribed for you.

>The sum of thy word is truth; and every one of thy righteous ordinances endures for ever.

I agree. We have been around for quite a while after all.

>Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you, and you be found a liar.

Cool reference to the Babylonian Talmud and the removal of certain books of scripture. Has no relation to the divine traditions handed down to us by the apostles, informed by the holy spirit and the scriptures though.

>my words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your children, or out of the mouth of your children’s children, says the Lord, from this time forth and for evermore

Note Mouth and not writing.

>Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

I have no issue.

>If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (and scripture cannot be broken)

Again, this is an address to the Pharisees who corrupted scripture through the Talmud and removal of certain books.

>Isaiah 55:11

Which is why we haven't abandoned scripture or the Traditions handed down to us… because both were given to us by The holy Spirit speaking through the Apostles.

>>777802

>Not according to Matthew 16:18. But the spirit of antichrist was already present during the composition of the New Testament according to 1 John 2:18 and 1 John 4:3.

I'm aware, I was being facetious, because the historic evidence for apostolic traditions goes back to the infancy of Christianity, and has continued to this day while various pseudo-christian cults have died out time and time again.

>Mark 7:7-13

Out traditions aren't of men. I literally spent my whole first reply identifying biblical precedents for them. Also, the tradition he's talking about that the Pharisees follow is not a tradition we have.

>1 Timothy 4:1-3

Matthew 19:10-12 and 1 Corinthians 7:36-38 as I cited to the other anon before you. The restriction on food is refering to the old testament teachings that were creeping into the church out of ignorance. Outside of Lenten fasting. Christ encouraged fasting Matthew 6:16

>Galatians 6:13

We don't practice circumcision. Protestants are the ones who brought that back into European society thinking it was a status symbol.

>So its not like the state church of babylon was a total surprise when it arose.

I think you confusing the catholic church with the protestant wolves who idolize the Jews and their own thought over the church of God., which has remained since it's foundation in Rome established by the Apostles 2000 years ago while your cults have come and gone for centuries. Should have know you were gonna be a dick about it*

> But fortunately despite all their efforts nobody was ever able to remove, change or replace the true word of God (that I'm referring to right now) and it remains as the best evidence to this day.

I agree. We, our scripture, and our teachings are still here after all.

I'm going to ignore you're following"point" because it should be obvious to any observer that I care about the scriptures. You'd have to be blind to say otherwise.

I already addressed your "points" on Marriage and Fasting

>idolatry

If you actually read our doctrine, you'd know we don't give sacred images any sort of power. They exist merely to honor god and the saints and to serve as a visual reminder to the the faithful. They have no power.

>later innovations to baptism

I already showed the other anon that Baptism is required for salvation.

>works gospel

Psalm 90:17, Proverbs 14:23. Proverbs 18:9, Matthew 25:31-46, John 6:27, Acts 20:35, 1 Corinthians 4:12, 1 Corinthians 15:58, Colossians 3:23, Hebrews 6:10, 1 Timothy 4:10. I can only hope and pray that at least one of those clears that up for you anon. For the sake of your soul.

>Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ

It's a God thing our philosophy is after Christ. You would know that if you read any of it.

>Galatians 3:22

<Implying we literally don't believe the scriptures are valid.

>Romans 4:13-14

<Implying we claim to be literal Jews and don't believe in the necessity of faith.

Cool Prot memes brah.

This is the most Stereotypical baptist post yet in this thread.

>>777830

Read my posts. I'm tired of redundancy and ignorance at this point.

>>777833 (Ima check myself)

I like to think God is on my side with this.

>>777801

The dragons' attack = Herod and the Massacre of the Innocents as well as what happened to the church. Because Mary is a living allegory for the church.

>>777839

>you do this and you do that

Please do not accuse me of something I have not done, Mary is the Mother of God obviously because Jesus Christ is God, the title is easy to misinterpret though.

Ok ill put it this way - there is evidence for the Eucharist in the very early church, and Jesus literally says "for my flesh is real food", its obvious that the Eucharist is literal.

But where is the evidence for this practice in the early church or even the Bible?(The prayers of the saints in revelation doesn't say anything about requests). I truly would appreciate you providing an example, Catholics seem to have most things correct but this falls flat.

Yes, I like her too, shes the ideal woman and fulfils plenty of the OT, but seeing that the practice wasn't there from the start makes me suspicious.

Of course I am hoping to be proven wrong here.

>>777837

The dragon attacked the woman after her son had already ascended to heaven. Then no.

In addition to the fact that the dragon does not attack the woman directly, it uses as a weapon "water like that of a river". A few chapters later we realize that water symbolizes peoples of all nations.

>>777845

The Didache has a passing reference to intercessory prayer in chapter four:

thou shalt seek out day by day the favour of the saints, that thou mayest rest in their words

>>777832

>And you know this how? Were you there?

I know what 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says.

>Did you receive some divine revelation of the past?

In the sense that God divinely revealed his word to mankind.

>Are you telling me that Peter, Paul, Andrew and all of the other apostles outside of Matthew, Mark, and John never preached their own gospels?

Are you telling us they actually said something different. In fact are you even implying right now that there is more than one gospel?

Lets assume you aren't saying these things. In that case they all agree.

>Because we don't have them written down anywhere.

I guarantee you that God was able to get his entire word to us. It doesn't even matter who you're hearing it from whether by word or by epistle even. It's supposed to be, if you've been paying attention, the inspired words that came down to us not by the will of men. So then if Paul is telling us, in 1 Corinthians 15:10, that it was not him but entirely the grace of God that was with him, how would you then logically credit these things to specific people like that. That is if you actually believe what it says. You couldn't do so, logically. God spoke through specific men (2 Peter 1:21) in this incredible act. So why would you think there were variances in it doctrinally from man to man. It just doesn't make any sense.

>For that matter, why do the Gospels differ in the first place

God wanted multiple witnesses on the record and manages to show us a lot of things by giving us minute parallels and differences with which to compare scripture with scripture. It was all known in advance exactly what each one was given to reveal, it was all meant to give a complete account. No accidents, no misrecordings, no corruptions, no missing things that have to be re-figured out, that's never how it worked with God. With man yes, but with 1 Peter 1:23-25 it explicitly states that it is the incorruptible seed, not the corruptible which is everything else including all manmade works and writings. These are corruptible and have been corrupted because they don't matter, only God's word matters.

I should also add that John 14:26 and John 16:13-14 testify that the Holy Spirit helps bring the saved person remembrance of these things which Jesus spoke, and taught, by his apostles and prophets. It only applies to scripture. 2 Peter 1:20 also only applies to scripture. Everything else is not only corruptible which I mentioned but also further it is all subject to private interpretation, whereas Scripture is not subject to this (as we see from 2 Peter 1:20), as it is being taught by the Holy Spirit. See 1 Corinthians 2:9-13, 1 John 2:27.

So you see how the Bible differs from every other record in how it will not be corrupted (as 1 Peter 1:23-25 says it is unique in this) and how it is taught by the Holy Spirit unto the man of God. He brings all things that Jesus said to remembrance.

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. — John 16:13-14

>John 6:54-56

Go on to read verse 63, Which is the explanation. And maybe add verse 68 to that as well, because you'll find someone else is on my side there.

>>777832

>"That word is the good news which was preached to you." Not transcribed for you.

>Not transcribed for you.

I'm moved to answer. They're one in the same, that's what Thessalonians 2:15 was all about.

Isaiah 30:8

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:

Revelation 1:3

Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

>Note Mouth and not writing.

After we just went over Thessalonians 2:15? Why is he that readeth blessed? Do we need a review?

>Out traditions aren't of men.

According to Galatians 1:9 if any man comes preaching some different gospel than what we have received, they are to be accursed. According to 2 Timothy 3:14, I am to know of whom I have learned these things. Whether it is of God or not. That counts every last word written in the word of God, and it counts no corruptible manmade traditions, including all other writings, that fade away and get warped over and changed with time. Scripture had nothing good to say of these. Paul warned of these. In Acts 20:28-31. In 1 Timothy 4:1-3. It's the babylonian state church.

>Matthew 19:10-12 and 1 Corinthians 7:36-38 as I cited to the other anon before you.

Are you sincerely confusing abstaining privately versus commanding other people to abstain specifically? 1 Timothy 4:1-3 speaks of one person commanding another to do these things. May the Lord rebuke them.

>We, our scripture, and our teachings are still here after all.

Well at least you're honest enough not to claim it was inspired by God. I'll take that step right away then and place myself firmly behind the Bible which is the word of God and my shield. I don't have any teachings of my own, all the teaching and all the work comes from the Lord, omnipotent.

>Psalm 90:17, Proverbs 14:23. Proverbs 18:9, Matthew 25:31-46, John 6:27, Acts 20:35, 1 Corinthians 4:12, 1 Corinthians 15:58, Colossians 3:23, Hebrews 6:10, 1 Timothy 4:10.

But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. — Matthew 19:26

But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. — 1 Corinthians 15:10

For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. — Philippians 2:13

>Cool Prot memes brah.

I quoted the Bible which shows that all have been concluded under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. That's a highly disrespectful thing for you to say this. But still more disrespectful is to say that someone wasn't concluded under sin because this denies the validity of the whole word of God and it will not be overlooked. Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

>>777234

Baptist churches are the resurrection of the original independent churches

>>777902

Not a resurrection, but a faithful application. Organized churches of born-again believers have always existed, even when their autonomy (independence) was compromised, and the largely Anglo Baptist tradition is one example of Biblical Christianity.

>>777250

Sola Scriptura seems rational on the surface, but it has problems.

The main problem is, why is the Bible the word of God? Why is it the ultimate authority? Why are the writings of these mere men: The four Evangelists, Paul of Tarsus, Simon Peter, James and Jude; why are they not only a "very accurate" interpretation of Christian belief, but an infallible and ultimate final authority?

Well, the Catholic Church has an answer to that. The Catholic Church is an infallible authority, and it obtained this authority from Christ himself. So the Church can declare that these particular writings from these particular men are "God-breathed". These men were part of the Church. The Bishops that compiled the Bible and declared it the word of God are part of the Church.

It seems like the Protestant answer is that the Bible is God-breathed just because it is.

The second problem is intent. None of the aforementioned men clearly intended their writings to be a Catechism. Let alone the only Catechism to ever be followed. The Evangelists were just reporting on the life of Jesus so their readers would come to believe. Paul of Tarsus was writing letters to address specific problems in the individual Churches around the world. None of the writers could have predicted that their documents would be compiled into a single book, and then, taken together, as an ultimate authority.

The third problem is, from how Christ acted and from what he said, he never intended for his Church to be based on a book. He never commanded his followers to write anything down, and people only got around to writing down his life and teachings decades after the fact, when the Church was growing and recording his life became a necessity.

>>777857

That still doesn't say that you should pray to them, it could easily be understood as the saints are watching down on us, and they pray to God based on the things they see. It doesn't say "pray to the saints", but "seek out day by day the favour of the saints", as in you should act righteously so they'll be more inclined to pray for you.

>>777939

<the Bible is only the word of God because we say it is

The Bible is God's word, He may not have put the pen to paper but He for sure wrote it. Think of it this way: if I write a song and sing it, then you write down the words, are you the author of the song? No, I still wrote the song, you just transcribed it. If that song says that I have brown eyes (because I do), do I need someone else's verification that the song is true, or are my eyes actually brown because I said so? To say that the word of God isn't the word of God until another man says so seems pretty wrong to me. I know you're gonna say something about how that man is guided by the holy spirit, or probably how he was appointed by God as the only guy with the authority to say that it's God's word. But if that's the case, is it really the man's authority that's saying it's God's word, or is it the Holy Spirit Himself that's saying it's God's word?

>>777939

None of these are challenges to the doctrine of sola scriptura. Sola scriptura is first predicated on the fact that the Bible is God's word.

>>777968

Stop blaspheming the Holy Ghost.

>>777993

wat

>>778006

The Church began on Pentecost.

The Church is not an "institution". It is organized but even this organization is the result of convenient needs, not an essential part of the Church.

Orthodox and Catholics do not believe that everyone who died before Christ went to Hell… At least fight against an enemy that actually exists, man.

>>778012

Slight correction - we do believe that everyone before Christ went to Hell. But, being dead, Christ descended down into Hell and rescued the righteous who were expecting Him.

>>777234

They don't, they come up with a "universal" and "visible, invisible" idea of the Church to justify their complete non-existence (aside from varying amounts of heretical and schismatic sects) throughout history.

>>778045

Funnily it's exactly the opposite.

a "universal" ekklesia is foreign to scripture. There are separate assemblies based on geography.

>>778051

all united by the apostles and their successors, and to this Early Church, they considered themselves all One, united by the apostolic successors

any questions?

>>778057

Yeah my question is why is repurposing words to a completely new meaning acceptable when it lets you contradict scripture, but not when you perceive protestants do it to contradict your historical narrative?

>>778059

>Yeah my question is why is repurposing words to a completely new meaning acceptable when it lets you contradict scripture

What contradiction? The Church consists of multiple geographical churches established by the Apostles, and kept in communion with each other by the Apostles and their successors going out of their to tend to each community and their Priests (elders).

It's literally in the scriptures, and the Protestant historical revisionism wasn't even a real idea for about 1,500 years! Well, except for the Gnostics and the Arians, and other sects, I suppose.

>but not when you perceive protestants do it to contradict your historical narrative?

This isn't narrative, this is truth. If you choose to close your eyes to it, you will only fall.

>>778060

I'm having a hard time following your thoughts. What I'm pointing out is that "church" in scripture is never used in the universal sense we sometimes give it today. The implication you're making is that the romish ecclesiology is demanded by the NT, but it is a stranger.

>by the Apostles and their successors going out of their to tend to each community and their Priests (elders)

?

>It's literally in the scriptures, and the Protestant historical revisionism wasn't even a real idea for about 1,500 years!

??

What is "it" that's in the scriptures?

what is a "real idea" that protestant revisionism wasn't…?

>>778064

>The implication you're making is that the romish ecclesiology is demanded by the NT, but it is a stranger.

sure. each church was led by an elder. the word for elder in the greek, later gave birth to the word "priest", because Christianity has existed for over 2,000 years, and some linguistic change is inevitable

each elder was greeted by the Apostles, whom went around each church to promote the tradition, preach the faith, correct errors, and grow the church. this responsibility was given on to other apostolic succesors, named bishops

catching on now?

>What is "it" that's in the scriptures?

geographical churches united by communion with each other

>what is a "real idea" that protestant revisionism wasn't…?

that the early church was some sort of nebulous church of believers untied by any communion or commonality of apostolic tradition or successors

next question!

>>777234

Okay, but, like, what about monothelitism? Is Sergius I in Hell because it's now heresy? Or is that some theologoumena?

>>778066

Koine greek has a word for priest, and it's used in the New Testament. The leader of the church is the Pastor. Bishop and elder are also terms for this same office.

Stop being condescending, it's insufferable. I came to post here to avoid 14 year old atheist argumentation.

>that the early church was some sort of nebulous church of believers untied by any communion or commonality of apostolic tradition or successors

You're still not coherent. Did you mean to say "was not"?

Protestantism is predicated on the stance that Rome does not hold special authority in Christian practice, usually explained that such a centralization of power is not Biblical.

The early churches had contact with each other and were unified in faith. They were in communion in the sense that they were in close relationship, but one church did not direct any other. This was and is still against God's design.

>>778070

>Koine greek has a word for priest, and it's used in the New Testament

Ok, which is?

>The leader of the church is the Pastor.

Which we now understand to be the Priest. St. Paul commented on the Eucharist, and those who partook of the communion, and especially spoke vehemently on those who took the communion unworthily, even to the risk of damnation!

>Bishop and elder are also terms for this same office.

Either way, the Bishop is sent directly by the apostles and their successors to succor the Faith.

>Stop being condescending

In what way am I being condescending?

> I came to post here to avoid 14 year old atheist argumentation.

How was anything I posted remotely similar to a teenage atheist?

>You're still not coherent.

Just because you say I am, does not mean I am. The basic ecclesiastical structure is in the scriptures, and in the remnants of what is left of the Early Church (St. Justin Martyr, the Muratonian Fragment, etc).

>Protestantism is predicated on the stance that Rome does not hold special authority in Christian practice

You're describing the Orthodox; but the Protestants go way further, denying the Apostolic Tradition, Faith and Reason, for various spins on the Solas. (fide, scriptura, etc etc)

>The early churches had contact with each other and were unified in faith

Through the apostolic tradition and the apostolic successors, yes.

>They were in communion in the sense that they were in close relationship, but one church did not direct any other.

They were literally directed by the Apostles and their successors. St. Paul writes instructions in the letters, and the churches are quite directly instructed to hold to the teachings and traditions of the Apostles.

I'm unsure where you got this idea of a loose band of churches only tied by a loose sense of faith, but it's not in the Scriptures.

>>778073

hiereus: priest

https://biblehub.com/str/greek/2409.htm

conjugated in 1 Peter 2 for the famous "holy/royal priesthood" hierateuma that all believers are

Paul was not a church. He wasn't a pastor of a church either. What I said was "one church did not direct any other".

In fact, after years of ministry, Paul submits to the elders in Jerusalem for their affirmation of his articulation of the gospel.

>I'm unsure where you got this idea of a loose band of churches only tied by a loose sense of faith, but it's not in the Scriptures.

I'm not advocating anything "loose". Either you're orthodox or you're not, and if you're not then you're not in communion. Same today as at that time.

Our basis for understanding the relationships between the churches is largely the Pauline espistles, where Paul speaks of the recipients as his brothers and co-laborers, but also as distinct "churches".

>>778074

I admit, I have not researched Greek etymologies because I presume the historical and scriptural evidence is worthy enough on its own.

>"holy/royal priesthood" hierateuma that all believers are

Oh, and what do you know about the universal priesthood? Do you not recall Core's rebellion? Who among the laity is called to consecrate the Eucharist? There is a universal priesthood, and then there is a higher priesthood, all with a basis in Scripture. Go re-read what happened to Core.

>Paul was not a church.

True, St. Paul was an Apostle. And Scripture affirms that we are called to hold to their teachings and their traditions.

>He wasn't a pastor of a church either.

Also, true. So tell me, what is St. Paul to you, friend?

>What I said was "one church did not direct any other".

And I rebuked you, replying that the Apostles directed each church, reconciling one among the other with their teachings and etc etc.

>Paul submits to the elders in Jerusalem for their affirmation of his articulation of the gospel.

and this refutes what? Catholicism and the Orthodox have Councils.

>I'm not advocating anything "loose".

Yes you are. The Church is meant to be tied together directly by the Apostles, and you and the other Protestants refuse to no purpose.

>where Paul speaks of the recipients as his brothers and co-laborers, but also as distinct "churches".

Yes? And? I already told you, I will tell you again. Each church is to be guided in their communion by the Apostle's and their successors. Which Church has ever denied that we become brothers and sisters in Christ? How can you turn around and then claim our spiritual brotherhood is enough cause to rupture the Apostolic Tradition?

>1And behold Core the son of Isaar, the son of Caath, the son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiron the sons of Eliab, and Hon the son of Pheleth of the children of Ruben, 2Rose lap against Moses, and with them two hundred and fifty others of the children of Israel, leading men of the synagogue, and who in the time of assembly were called by name. 3And when they had stood up against Moses and Aaron, they said: Let it be enough for you, that all the multitude consisteth of holy ones, and the Lord is among them: Why lift you up yourselves above the people of the Lord?

Tell me, what happened to Core?

>>778076

This is really tiresome and not productive.

I'm not looking to engage in a debate on any possible point of disagreement line by line. My point tonight is that "the catholic church" is not an institution found in scripture nor supported (as existing in an institution) in scripture.

"The church" in the universal sense is a fine concept but misleading in terminology, in most Western contexts because of the influence of large para-church institutions calling themselves a "church". Strictly, church means assembly. It is a local group of people convened together. Here's a challenge: take any instruction to a church in the New Testament and try to find internal evidence that it applies to an institution higher than the local congregation.

>>778080

>This is really tiresome and not productive.

For you, as for myself, the idea of a Church without the apostolic tradition or the apostolic succession is absolutely untenable. More than untenable, ridiculous.

>I'm not looking to engage in a debate on any possible point of disagreement line by line

Why not? If I can provide a rebuttal for each one, you should be able to address it in turn. Otherwise, you are merely allowing me to win the argument.

>My point tonight is that "the catholic church" is not an institution found in scripture nor supported (as existing in an institution) in scripture.

And you are absolutely wrong. Any Church that is the authentic Church, must provide a legitimate line of succession from the Apostles, and hold to the tradition of these self-same Apostles. If your Church lacks both of these, it is not the Church in Scripture.

> Strictly, church means assembly. It is a local group of people convened together. Here's a challenge: take any instruction to a church in the New Testament and try to find internal evidence that it applies to an institution higher than the local congregation.

Sure, the apostles. Whom do you believe St. Paul was writing to? What was he writing about? It's implicit in the Scriptures, I don't know what to tell you, what exactly was St. Paul doing providing instructions to all these churches for?

>>778080

>"The church" in the universal sense is a fine concept but misleading in terminology, in most Western contexts because of the influence of large para-church institutions calling themselves a "church". Strictly, church means assembly. It is a local group of people convened together.

Protestants in this thread already have referred to all christian churches as being unified under the one church of Christ. They just each have a different definition of what a true christian is.

>Here's a challenge: take any instruction to a church in the New Testament and try to find internal evidence that it applies to an institution higher than the local congregation.

That's a completely pointless "argument". Saying that just because something isn't described in the specific way you want it to be doesn't mean it's nonexistent. And this is ultimately the blatant flaw of Protestantism: the idea that everything pertaining to the faith is blatant in the scriptures to the point where no further instruction or understanding is necessary.

Have you all ever thought about how you all profess to believe in the Solas yet have differing views? Why is that? How is that possible if the Solas are true? It makes sense for you to disagree with us and the Orthodox because we don't hold the same stance, but how do you have different perspectives that contradict each other then? Why do Lutherans believe in Consubstantiation and not every other protestant sect? Why do some denoms allow for female priests and deacons while others don't? If the solas are true and you all really ascribe to them, how is this possible? There are differing perspectives in the church, but we ultimately have a unified dogma. That's not the case in Protestantism.

Paul describes tradition separate from the scriptures, as is evidenced comparing 1 Corinthians 11:1-3 with 1 Corinthians 15:3-5. References to scriptures in the letters of the Apostles were referencing the old testament, as that is where the mystery of Christ was first professed and the Divine plan for salvation laid out in a manner that the scribes and Pharisees could not see due to their arrogance and having embraced the Talmud. The gospels were written by each apostle, inspired by the Holy Spirit while they were separated from each other in order to recount the life of Christ to the faithful and lay down the core teachings and precepts of the church. The letters of the apostles apostles were written to reinforce many of their teachings (which reaffirm both scripture and tradition as key to the church) so as to prevent disunity. They were later compiled into the NT by the "institutional" church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as it always has been.The NT is the word of God just as the OT is the word of God, but as is evidence by the division amongst you yourselves it's clear that there has to have been more to the faith to maintain true unity. Compared to the rifts among protestant sects who all supposedly embrace the Solas, the rift between Catholicism and Orthodoxy is nothing.

>>778081

I'm going to jump in here and agree with >>778080 incessant point-by-point arguing is tiring and gay. I'd say it's on par with reddit spacing, unless the discussion clearly calls for such a style.

>>778085

For further reference to what I'm talking about:

Matthew 26:55

>But all this has taken place, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples forsook him and fled.

Luke 24:27

>And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Luke 24:44-45

>Then he said to them, “These are my words which 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.” Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures,

John 5:38-40 AKA Protestantism

>and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe him whom he has sent. You search the scriptures , because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

Acts 17:1-3

>Now when they had passed through Amphip′olis and Apollo′nia, they came to Thessaloni′ca, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And Paul went in, as was his custom, and for three weeks[a] he argued with them from the scriptures , explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.”

Acts 17:10-12

>The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Beroe′a; and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessaloni′ca, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so. Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men.

Acts 18:24

>Now a Jew named Apol′los, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, well versed in the scriptures.

Acts 18:27-28

>the brethren encouraged him, and wrote to the disciples to receive him. When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed, for he powerfully confuted the Jews in public, showing by the scriptures that the Christ was Jesus. Here we can see directly that the letters and the scriptures were clearly thought of as separate at the time of the Apostles/Early Church. Also, why would Pharisaic Jews be concerned with the New Testament?

>>778170

Romans 1:1-3

>Paul, a servant[a] of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh

Romans 15:3-4

>For Christ did not please himself; but, as it is written, “The reproaches of those who reproached thee fell on me.” For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope. Here, Paul quotes the book of Psalms as the scriptures rather than the word of Christ, because while both are the word of god, the Gospel was originally proclaimed through the Old Testament. The NT wasn't compiled until far later, and so it's obvious that when the Apostles refer to the Scriptures they aren't talking about any New Testament texts.

1 Corinthians 11:2-3

>I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Paul uses the term tradition here rather than scriptures before going on to describe a practice completely absent in the Gospels or any other NT writing. Almost as though there are traditions that the Faithful practice that weren't transcribed into text, yet were still handed down by the Apostles…

1 Corinthians 15:3-4

>For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, Christ obviously could not die in accordance with the New Testament, because it didn't exist yet.

2 Peter 3:15-17

>And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, IE the cults of the Protestants and their dozens of sects, all drawing radically different tenants from the same words twisted to fit whatever agenda they please as they do the other scriptures. Scriptures are distinguished from Paul's writings, meaning that at the time they weren't thought of as scriptures, which are the OT You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men The Solas, twisted out of Paul's writings and lose your own stability.

>>778124

>I'm going to jump in here and agree with >>778080 incessant point-by-point arguing is tiring and gay

I don't care. If you're not willing to defend your argument by every inch, don't make it.

>>778219

>see this and this and this with no quotations are explications on why they're true

now, THIS is a tiring and silly method of argumentation.

>I'm unified in faith and doctrine with my church, so I have no idea what you're talking about

Which is? We're united to the Church built upon St. Peter, tethered with the apostolic tradition and succession, what reed have you attached yourself to?

>Church means assembly, and more specifically than that a congregation

This is ridiculous. You deny the conditions of the Church in scripture over semantics? It is not mere assembly, all true Churches must have the Apostles. You lack that, you are simply not part of the branch.

> Now I'll ask very calmly that you stop wresting the Scriptures like this and learn your place here.

Did you seriously just type this out? What's wrong with you?

>>778224

You haven't proven why I should respond to you. I was talking to the other poster.

You don't even have scripture. Sorry but I don't have unlimited time to deal with word games with you.

>>778219

>The fact you think scripture doesn't refer to the word of God is already beyond what anyone else believes

I never said the NT wasn't the word of God or the scripture of the modern church. I said that when Paul and the other Apostles make reference to scripture they aren't talking about what they're writing or have written, they're talking about the Old Testament. And all that I quoted reaffirms this since they never describe what they are writing as scripture.

>You already got the exact reverse meaning out of 2 Peter 3:15-17, so maybe you just don't come back at all.

He says you twist Paul's writings like how you twist the other scriptures, IE the old testament. But even if you want to say otherwise, Paul's writings themselves still make the distinction, do the Acts and the Gospels.

>And further you avoided answering my post before

I don't remember, I was away from the computer for a while.

>so I don't know why you thought it was alright to come back here anyway

Because this is a free discussion.

>Stop attacking scripture.

I haven't. If anything my whole post was affirming how much I care about scripture. You're the one who like to bend it to whatever you want.

>I'm unified in faith and doctrine with my church, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

If every protestant sect claims to be unified in the belief in the Solas, how are there variations in doctrine? How are their multiple different sects? This question was obvious.

>Church means assembly, and more specifically than that a congregation

It refers to both a local congregation and the entirety of the church of god throughout the world. See 1 Corinthians 12:28, Galatians 1:13, Ephesians 1:21-23, Ephesians 3:9-11, Ephesians 5:22-32, Colossians 1:17-19, Colossians 1:24-25, 1 Timothy 3:5

It can be and is used to refer to both a singular congregation and the collective whole of the faithful. If it were otherwise, that you mean you've let earthly boundaries take president over the unity of Christ.

>I see a lot of quarreling and differing viewpoints among all the pedobaptists denominations though, including catholics. What's up with that?

As I already stated, compared to differences between branches that all profess to follow the Solas and therefore claim to be guided by the Holy spirit, our divisions are minuscule. So much so that Eastern Catholicism and Latin Rite Orthodoxy exist.

>Yeah, that's an understatement, like whether or not abortion is killing

The Doctrine of the church affirms that it is murder.

>charismatic–healing subcircles are allowed and even on what the Gospel is and even debates on what is or isn't Scripture!

None of this is debated in the Catholic church. And if it ever was, we've had nearly 2000 years and the guidance of the Holy Spirit to settle the matter. I can't speak of the actions of thoughts of individuals, but that's the whole point of a unified Doctrine.

>It's a good thing my church has no such debates

There are baptists that disagree with each other on the meaning of scripture regularly. Your branch of your cult may be in unity with itself, but that means nothing for the entire body of Christ.

>Now I'll ask very calmly that you stop wresting the Scriptures like this and learn your place here.

If you weren't talking with a Holier than thou attitude prior to this, this solidifies it. You sound exactly like the Pharisees at this point.

>After all, and as you admit, you don't have the right to interpret the scriptures alone.

Good thing I have the guidance of the Holy spirit.

Honestly now you just seem like you're scraping for a counter argument to the point of ad hominem and arrogance. Especially with that whole "learn your place here." remark. I've been talked down to by prots before, but that was a whole other level…

>>778219

Honestly, that you for showing your true colors towards the end there.

Even in all my jests at protestant is, I never spoke in such a degrading, dehumanizing manner to you. The fact you would preach the word of the god of love in such a manner reminds me why I'm not protestant.

You need to have a bit of a Come To Jesus moment, sir.

>>778245

*Thank for showing

Sorry, I'm bit off after being addressed in such a way.

>>778240

>And all that I quoted reaffirms this since they never describe what they are writing as scripture.

Go to 2 Peter 3 then. You've been arguing an absolutely insane point that the New Testament isn't scripture. If that isn't disrespectful, then what is? I refuse to overlook this. Go to 2 Peter 3 and see where he refers to the epistles as scripture.

And another thing, it's been argued that the apostles were never commanded to write. This is yet another nonsensical position.

>Paul's writings themselves still make the distinction, do the Acts and the Gospels.

2 Peter 1:19-21. If you think that only applies to the Old Testament then I have serious problems with what you are telling me and everyone else in this thread.

We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

>And all that I quoted reaffirms this since they never describe what they are writing as scripture.

If you really have to drive this point all the way off the cliff, there's nothing I can do but tell you to stop spreading misconceptions about the inspiration of the New Testament.

If you think somehow that God's word isn't the same thing, you're simply grasping at thin air trying to make a distinction that isn't there. And 2 Peter 3:16 indisuptably proves so because there he called Paul's epistles scripture.

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 2 Peter 3:16

>Because this is a free discussion.

Good, then you don't mind if I tell you not to act like you couldn't answer me and move on to spreading new misconceptions like nothing happened. According to this thread history, you're the guy that couldn't figure out what to say so you changed the subject.

>How are their multiple different sects? This question was obvious.

That's what I was also asking before when I asked about pedo-baptist denominations. It includes all of you.

>It can be and is used to refer to both a singular congregation and the collective whole of the faithful.

Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 1 Corinthians 7:3

By that logic there is one husband, namely "the husband" in existence. You could cite 1 Corinthians 7:3 as the proof that there is only one husband. I could find many other examples of similar uses of definite articles, including when it says "the church" in reference to each church in an abstract sense.

Another thing, 1 Corinthians 12:27.

Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

Notice that Paul doesn't include himself by saying we. This is because he was referring to the Corinthian church inclusively. If it were a universal church and there were only one, he would have to say "we." Glad you gave us a chance to learn something here.

>I can't speak of the actions of thoughts of individuals, but that's the whole point of a unified Doctrine.

All the things I've mentioned there have been debated throughout the history of all the denominations. Right now you have leadership in all of them that vary among themselves on each of those points.

The fact you can't speak for the actions of any individuals including all of leadership is obvious. It's because there was never intended to be unity of any kind of doctrine, only strictly political unity. It's merely an academic point for you to say there is a unity of thought, it's not any kind of reality. And the only reason I can say it is because I've seen what real unity of faith is and there is no debate over these things. I CAN speak for it.

But I guess some people who can't come here anyway actually pretending they have a scriptural basis for this stuff, that's where I'm moved to stop it.

>Your branch of your cult may be in unity with itself, but that means nothing for the entire body of Christ.

Thanks but stop belittling my church.

>Good thing I have the guidance of the Holy spirit.

So you're not a sacerdotalist then? I didn't know there were people claiming to follow catholic doctrine who were like that.

Normally you rightfully have to admit that you have no business interpreting scriptures. That's normally where this goes.

>>778245

Glad I managed to make a good point. You really have no business interpreting God's word.

>I never spoke in such a degrading, dehumanizing manner to you.

No, you only blasphemed the word of God. There was no attack on me. But that's no big deal to you I guess.

>>778219

>you don’t have the right to interpret the scriptures alone

Says who? Some official whose position isn’t even in the Bible?

>>778266

>Go to 2 Peter 3 then. You've been arguing an absolutely insane point that the New Testament isn't scripture.

No I'm not. I'm saying WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT "THE SCRIPTURES" THEY'RE REFERRING TOO THE OT. I have not claimed once that the NT isn't the inspired word of god. All I'm doing is acknowledging the historic context under which the NT was written.

>I refuse to overlook this.

There's nothing to overlook, because I never said any of this.

>Go to 2 Peter 3 and see where he refers to the epistles as scripture.

He refers to the Epistles and to The Old Testament. He calls the Epistles Paul's writings and The OT the other scriptures. I'm not saying Paul's Epistles aren't Scripture, I'm saying that in the historic context of the church when they describe the scriptures they are referring to the old testament. I'm not saying not to hold The NT as Scripture, I'm saying that when they talk about "The Scriptures" They are referring to the old testament, not their own writings. I don't know how you aren't understanding what I'm saying.

>And another thing, it's been argued that the apostles were never commanded to write. This is yet another nonsensical position.

I don't even know what point you're trying to refute with this…

>2 Peter 1:19-21. If you think that only applies to the Old Testament then I have serious problems with what you are telling me and everyone else in this thread.

I didn't say that either! I never said the NT wasn't inspired by God. Nor did I say to ignore the NT. You are chasing phantoms sir. That doesn't change the fact that the Scriptures he's referring to at the time were the old testament. The prophesies he's referring to are the teachings of the NT and the Apostles to show that the prophecy of the OT came true in Jesus Christ. I never said otherwise. What are you talking about?

>If you really have to drive this point all the way off the cliff, there's nothing I can do but tell you to stop spreading misconceptions about the inspiration of the New Testament.

I NEVER SAID OTHERWISE! I'm so confused at your interpretation of what I was saying.

>Good, then you don't mind if I tell you not to act like you couldn't answer me and move on to spreading new misconceptions like nothing happened. According to this thread history, you're the guy that couldn't figure out what to say so you changed the subject.

Like I said, I left my computer for a while. Remind me of the discussion and I'll address it. Either way that doesn't invalidate anything I'm saying RIGHT NOW. A broken clock is right twice a day. This is a completely fallacious "argument" built purely off of pride.

>That's what I was also asking before when I asked about pedo-baptist denominations. It includes all of you.

We don't. We don't consider each other wholly legitimate. Protestants do consider each other legitimate.

>By that logic there is one husband, namely "the husband" in existence. You could cite 1 Corinthians 7:3 as the proof that there is only one husband.

Except that 1 Corinthians 7:3 says "Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man not to touch a woman." Establishing that it was in plural.

>1 Corinthians 12:27

The body is the collective faithful and the members are the churches and the individuals within each church.

>This is because he was referring to the Corinthian church inclusively. If it were a universal church and there were only one, he would have to say "we." Glad you gave us a chance to learn something here.

To say this makes each Epistle inapplicable to any other congregation than the one it was addressed to.

>>778266

>All the things I've mentioned there have been debated throughout the history of all the denominations. Right now you have leadership in all of them that vary among themselves on each of those points.

We have an established Dogmatic stance on those issues. Their may be people who want that to change, which is exactly why I said "I can't speak of the actions of thoughts of individuals"

> It's because there was never intended to be unity of any kind of doctrine, only strictly political unity. It's merely an academic point for you to say there is a unity of thought, it's not any kind of reality.

As I've said in another thread, there are multiple correct interpretations of scripture. There are also multiple incorrect interpretations of scripture. Discerning which one is which is the point of debate in the church. If even the Apostles debated among themselves. However thy never broke unity with one another.

>And the only reason I can say it is because I've seen what real unity of faith is and there is no debate over these things.

Complete division is not a good thing, but neither is total blind faith in your own ideals. Then it just becomes the blind leading the blind.

>But I guess some people who can't come here anyway actually pretending they have a scriptural basis for this stuff, that's where I'm moved to stop it.

(◔_◔) OK, I'll just ignore everything else I've said thus far too.

>Thanks but stop belittling my church.

After your remarks, no.

>So you're not a sacerdotalist then? I didn't know there were people claiming to follow catholic doctrine who were like that.

The whole idea of the church is that it and the faithful are guided by the holy spirit. To say otherwise is counter to 2 Peter 1:19-21.

>Normally you rightfully have to admit that you have no business interpreting scriptures. That's normally where this goes.

and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe him whom he has sent. You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. John 5:38-40

>Glad I managed to make a good point. You really have no business interpreting God's word.

The arrogance. Any prot want to step in? Or is this attitude totally ok with you guys?

>No, you only blasphemed the word of God. There was no attack on me. But that's no big deal to you I guess.

I can't even with this. I've never been more insulted in my life. Not only to be so dehumanizing ina manner counter to the scriptures, but to then double-down on it…

>>778268

>Says who? Some official whose position isn’t even in the Bible?

You realize he's a protestant right? You're on the same side…

I feel like that response sums up this thread.

>>778266

I hope for the sake of Protestants you're a false flag, because if not you guys might be too far gone.

>>778222

You are extremely imbecilic. It is possible, in fact preferable, to argue and debate without going line by line, as if you are checking off a list. By only formatting your arguments in that manner you are only actually showing how blisteringly stupid you are, as your mind can't process more than one thought at a time and thus you can't address the points the other anon made without making a list. Even in your reply to my post, which was only a matter of sentences, you resorted to that literally retarded form of argumentation. Get the winnie the pooh out of here if you will not learn how to write, never return, you are not welcome here.

>>777234

>And to decide which one is legitimate one needs to look into the scripture, study holy tradition, the doctrines/teachings of both Churches, read the Church Fathers etc

This is a big problem with the Cathodox. There has been so much written over the past thousand years of schism that no one could ever read all of it and come to a truly. Informed decision. Then you could say just read the important things, but important to what standard? Your conversion could be based off of incomplete reasoning depending on what you read.

So what Church do you go with? The larger one? That makes some sense since the largest Church surely has the grace of God guiding it, except the Catholic Church has said the amount of followers doesn't justify them. Do you go with whatever one feels best? Then you'll be accused of prelest by the Orthodox.

I say just flip a coin tbh.

>>778300

cringe

>>778352

>Or else how would you object to the fact that "scripture" in the Bible refers to it.

Because the term was used before NT even existed. Not just before the Gospels were written, but also several of the Epistles. Not to mention how spread out they were. You're miss interpreting what I'm saying every single reply and it's getting insanely old.

>The only other alternative is that you're saying it is incorrect, that it has a wrong idea about what scripture is and that you can't trust it when it starts talking about scripture; something I've been assuming up until now you didn't espouse.

Are you autistic? I never once said that the NT wasn't true. I literally just said that the term scripture was used in reference to the OT. At no point did I say the NT wasn't valid, or even that it wasn't scripture. All I said was that when the NT references "The Scriptures" it's talking about the old testament, which is where the entire prophecy of Christ came from that the NT fulfills. This being the case would be the only useful way to rebuke the Pharisees, as just professing the Gospel and not drawing Parallels to the OT would mean nothing. The original infant church had the epistles (albeit spread out) but the formal NT cannon that we now have wasn't compiled until much later. So the early church relied primarily on the OT and disjointed Gospels before the Nt was finally compiled. This is a fact about church history that puts the the term scriptures into perspective. Never once have I said "DENY THE NEW TESTAMENT" nor have I denied the NT as the inspired word of God transmitted through men by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The fact you think that I was even implying that is yet another insult to add to the list. I suggest you learn your church history, it may be helpful in further discussions.

The point of what I was saying was to put into perspective that when they speak of scripture they are referencing the old testament, and as such when they refer to the traditions passed down it's not simply a reference to the scriptures, as was claimed by an anon earlier. Certainly the Gospel would be a part of that tradition, but it's not necessarily the collective whole. I was trying to point out that their may have been more to the tradition they were referring to based on the understanding of the term scripture in a historic context… and you spun that into this massive clusterF**K that had almost nothing t do with what I was trying to say. Hence, only just now have I actually been able to get to the winnie the pooh point.

>You're saying that 2 Peter 1:20 is only about the Old Testament and that it isn't about everything in the New Testament as well.

>Surely you realize that the next verse includes the apostles who were speaking by inspiration, not just the prophets.

You understand that if the OT doesn't contain the gospels our faith is founded on lies right? When Luke 24:45 says "Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures" it's not referring to the new testament that wasn't even written at the time. And the same goes for the acts and epistles. Like I said earlier, the infant church relied mostly on the OT and the preaching of the Apostles. The compendium of NT texts we have (Which are the inspired word of god, because apparently I have to stress that constantly or else you're gonna spurg out) wasn't compiled until after the apostles were long dead.

>Surely you realize that they knew they were prophesying the word of God just the same as the prophets who wrote Old Testament scripture. Surely you realize they understood the implications of that. Should I go find a reference for you on them knowing they were being inspired, because I could find many for you just by looking through the epistles.

Surely you could be less of a knee-jerk autistic prick for five seconds.

>>778352

>2 Peter 1:19-21 uses the word scripture. So then the word scripture in 2 Peter 1:20 applies to the New Testament as well. So then "all scripture" includes it necessarily, as does the word of God & the Bible as a whole, in order for the Bible to be true in its statements. If you agree then there is no need to keep doing this.

Again, it's about the historic context. Yes, you use it in application to all scripture now, that's how we compiled the NT cannon in the first place. But in this instance he's technically referring to prophecies taken from the OT and fulfilled in Christ. Christ himself said “These are my words which 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.” Last I checked, those aren't NT texts. The apostles served the role of showing the jews and gentiles what these prophecies were and how they were fulfilled in Christ. So in the historic context, that is what interpretation of scripture is referring too. Of course, as the word of god, the bible is timeless and so god foresaw the NT. But the direct reference peter is making is to the OT. Again, LEARN CHURCH HISTORY. And again, this had nothing to do with my intended point. So I'm just wasting time here explaining toddler level church history to a sperging prot.

>It's not surprising you haven't attached any reasoning to this statement. I don't see any train of thought that could arrive at this conclusion

Because I was being intentionally hyperbolic. Either the church of god can refer to all churches and as a result the collective faithful, or it can be as ridiculously narrow as you wanted it to be. If 2 Peter 1:19-20 can be (and is) written with divine foresight to apply the scriptures that hadn't even existed at the time of its writing, why not this apply to a far greater church than just these small local congregations?

>1 Corinthians 1:10

Acts 15:2: And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.

Acts 15:6-8: The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us;

Like I said, even the Apostles debated issues of doctrine with each other, and you acknowledge they were informed by divine providence. Even with the Holy Spirit resting upon you, you are still a flawed mortal.

>>778309

>There has been so much written over the past thousand years of schism that no one could ever read all of it and come to a truly. Informed decision.

Yes, you can. It's easier to just look at the beginnings of the historical split (with Photius) and decide whether or not it was a political or genuine theological split. Obviously, it's the former, since Photius had a explicit political purpose in mind by excoriating the Papal Primacy - justifying his 10-day ascension from lay-man to Patriarch in St. Ignatius' seat.

>>778300

>You are extremely imbecilic

"Sticks and stones." - JC Denton

>You haven't proven why I should respond to you. I was talking to the other poster.

Hey, you deciding to take your ball home isn't a victory for yourself. Since this is also an open thread with open discussion, I can make argumentative ripostes to any post I like.

>You don't even have scripture. Sorry but I don't have unlimited time to deal with word games with you

Do you have a single fact to back that up

>>778508

>Are you autistic? I never once said that the NT wasn't true. I literally just said that the term scripture was used in reference to the OT. At no point did I say the NT wasn't valid, or even that it wasn't scripture. All I said was that when the NT references "The Scriptures" it's talking about the old testament, which is where the entire prophecy of Christ came from that the NT fulfills. This being the case would be the only useful way to rebuke the Pharisees, as just professing the Gospel and not drawing Parallels to the OT would mean nothing. The original infant church had the epistles (albeit spread out) but the formal NT cannon that we now have wasn't compiled until much later.

This is really the issue, anon, they just ignore history. They'll accuse of "not listening to scripture", while they themselves just close their eyes to the simple fact that the scriptural canon itself was not compiled until several centuries after the fact.

It's this sort of historical ignorance that ultimately destroys their own interpretations.

OP here, it's impressive how much this simple thread has blown up with some debates here being on the level of Memri TV, c'mon guys.

my problem with catholicism as a form

>a "bureaucratic" faith where the church as a physical institution is put above a lot of else

my problem with orthodoxy as a form

>they seem cool and less bureaucratic than the catholic, albeit a bit inactive in spreading the faith

my problem with protestantism as a form

>prone to reforming too much, becoming extremely secularized, a gazillion denominations due to "sola scriptura" opening up the way for any idiot to claim that they have the right interpretation

t. nordic Lutheran

>>778661

What color is your hair this week? How big are your ear gauges?

>>778508

I quoted Galatians 3:22 in this >>777802 post in complete seriousness, which you then called "memes." I'm sorry but that qualifies as a complete disrespect for the words of the Bible.

From that point on, you left that behind and started talking to us out of nowhere >>778085

about how "scripture" in the Bible refers to the Old Testament and not the New. When directly confronted on this, you've continued to avoid admitting that it refers to all scripture. It doesn't strictly refer only to a portion of it. You've avoided admitting it, such as here in the post I'm responding to:

>nor have I denied the NT as the inspired word of God

Notice you didn't say scripture, which is because you keep on quietly maintaining these aren't the same thing. If you could have just agreed on what I'd posted in the post before, you could have said nothing and the issue would be done, however, you apparently still have some objection to me calling the New Testament scripture according to the Bible. The fact you even had to respond to change some facet of it, however minutely, proves you object to it.

Recall that this is the original point I've attempted to maintain from the start.

The rest of what they've said here has no basis in scripture and I don't need to talk about it.

>there are multiple correct interpretations of scripture.

Now that this is over, here's all I have left to say. If you all here think that these people are about understanding the scripture or of biblical reasoning on doctrine, if you think it isn't willing to use any means to suppress scripture, just consider the following quote.

<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.f (Edward Peters. Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, Council of Toulouse, 1229, Canon 14, p 195.)

<eSince 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.f (Council of Trent: Rules on Prohibited Books, approved by Pope Pius IV, 1564

>>778530

True. They seem to act as though the Apostles had the same divine foresight as the Lord, which is obviously not the case.

The best example of this to me is how Paul and the others Apostles clearly initially thought that the second coming was going to happen in their lifetimes, yet as they get closer to martyrdom they realize that that's not the case. You can see a clear progression of this in Paul's Epistles, leading up to St John (the only apostle who died a natural death based on historic records, and the most Mystic of the Apostles) writing the book of Revelations. It's one of the most interesting part about the NT to me.

The fact we had to weed the true NT texts (and OT text for that matter) out from a variety of apocryphal texts that were already spreading among Christians should be a testament to how the NT wasn't properly established as scriptural until after the death of the Apostles, as well as the fact that the holy spirit was resting on the church even after the council of Nicaea and the "introduction of Romanism" as they'd put it. But as I've said already in this thread, protestants are openly historically revisionist, so talking about church history or trying to put the Bible in a historic context to them is meaningless, and I don't know why I bothered to try.They'd rather take their OT cannon from non-Christians and ignore the development of the NT cannon in favor of blind allegiance to their ideals. They'd rather pretend that the early church was as organized and cultic as their little cliques than acknowledge it as the messy and loose association that it initially was. They chastise us for supposedly straying from the early church by having an organized structure while they don't realize that the early church after the apostles wasn't as solidified as they think it was. Far from it in fact.

Additionally, as this protanons responses to my posts are a testament to, they (and especially Baptists) are so kneejerk and aggressive. I admit I made some comments in jest (and continue to do so) but his response to what I was saying is legitimately the most insulted I've ever felt in regards to discussions of religion. More so than when I've debated with atheists even. As I said before if I wasn't opposed to conversion to protestantism before this, his response has served as a stark reminder as to why I chose Catholicism in the first place. To effectively tell me to stop reading scriptures, remain silent and "learn your place here" is one of the most anti-christian things I could ever think of saying to someone. It sound like the kind of behavior protestants accuse us of. The level of arrogance on display was a whole new level. It's like he saw me say that reading the scriptures is what made me chose Catholicism, and so rather than acknowledge anything I say he just decided I was unfit to speak on the matter. Disgusting.

>>778530

I remember thinking about all he wrote and how he was at mass as the readings were being said: Sirach 4-7, 1 Corinthians 15:54-58, and Luke 6:39-45

>When a sieve is shaken, the refuse remains; so a man’s filth remains in his thoughts. The kiln tests the potter’s vessels; so the test of a man is in his reasoning. The fruit discloses the cultivation of a tree; so the expression of a thought discloses the cultivation of a man’s mind. Do not praise a man before you hear him reason, for this is the test of men.

>When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” “O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?” The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.

>He also told them a parable: “Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? A disciple is not above his teacher, but every one when he is fully taught will be like his teacher. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother’s eye. “For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit; for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thorns, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. The good man out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure produces evil; for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.

Ya know, for being supposedly evil and false, the readings in the Missal always seem to say something to me on a personal level that day. Originally I was gonna give up and just leave this discussion, but hearing those what gave me the motivation to both correct him… as well as tell him off.

>>778700

Because I quoted examples from the NT and OT describing the necessity of works, and because your guy's arguments never change. The scripture itself wasn't memes, your use of them was memes.

> about how "scripture" in the Bible refers to the Old Testament and not the New.

I said scripture in the NT was originally a reference to the OT and not the Nt, which it was. We now take it as applyng to scripture as a whole because the holy spirit had foresight beyond that of the Apostles to the point that it was able to guide the church in deciding what books of the NT were cannon or not, but the original historically contextual meaning was referring purely to the OT.

>When directly confronted on this, you've continued to avoid admitting that it refers to all scripture.

No, you just misinterpreted what I was saying as being an assertion that the NT wasn't scripture.

>Notice you didn't say scripture, which is because you keep on quietly maintaining these aren't the same thing.

The fact that they are the same thing is why I didn't feel there was a need to specify. To say otherwise is to say that the entire bible isn't inspired by God.

>If you could have just agreed on what I'd posted in the post before, you could have said nothing and the issue would be done, however, you apparently still have some objection to me calling the New Testament scripture according to the Bible.

It's the scripture of the modern church, but when the NT made reference to the scriptures it wasn't talking about itself initially. I made this clear to you multiple times and you continued to oppose and insult me.

> If you all here think that these people are about understanding the scripture or of biblical reasoning on doctrine, if you think it isn't willing to use any means to suppress scripture, just consider the following quote.

<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.

<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.

Because as I said, there are multiple correct and multiple incorrect interpretations of scripture. Letting someone who isn't more thoroughly educated in the scriptures is libel to misinterpret them, as has happened multiple times going all the way back to the ancient church. That's not to say that all clergy are infallible though, after all they started Protestantism. Even back in the Apostolic days, it was the church leaders and priests, who were formally chosen through the laying on of hands as was described in the NT, preaching what was written in the OT and Gospels. Also, back in the days of the first example books were handwritten and incredibly rare and expensive to make, so they couldn't mass produce the text like they started to in the 1600s.

Either way, quoting a stance the church no longer hold to me has nothing to do with the current discussion.

>>777234

>older = better

Guess it's time to remake the tabernacle and sacrifice some goats

>>778806

older is better

>And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

More specifically, the True Church has to be around 2,000 years old, otherwise Christ lied.

So yes, around 2,000 years old = true Church.

>>778702

>Additionally, as this protanons responses to my posts are a testament to, they (and especially Baptists) are so kneejerk and aggressive.

They also like to IP-hop if you look at the IDs.

>>779029

>More specifically, the True Church has to be around 2,000 years old, otherwise Christ lied

More importantly, like I said earlier, when prots claim to be the historic Church of Christ, then yes, age matters.

>They also like to IP-hop if you look at the IDs

I'm sure.

>>779029

>older is better

So Boomers are better than Zoomers? Nice!

>>779029

>He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The rock that Jesus is building his church on is Peter's statement of belief that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus even says that He is the foundation of the church, how can the church be built on Peter if Jesus is the foundation? Peter is also a fallible man, while Jesus is perfect, so it would make sense for Jesus to be the solid rock that the church is built upon, just like the parable in Matthew 7:24-27. Why would Jesus establish a church on a fallible man (Peter is even rebuked by Paul), when He could instead build it on Himself as the foundation? Peter's statement, that Jesus is the Christ, is Peter's faith, and scripture tells us time and again that we are saved through faith. Peter also had multiple people he taught, so why would the Roman church be the only one to have rightful power over the rest? The argument just doesn't stand once you really analyze the scripture.

>>779088

>The rock that Jesus is building his church on is Peter's statement of belief that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God

It was not, Christ renamed Simon "Cephas", and proclaimed that He would build the Church upon Him. This is reinforced later when Christ re-asserts St. Peter himself when the Apostles argued amongst themselves.

>how can the church be built on Peter if Jesus is the foundation?

Upon Cephas, Christ created a position under Himself, the servant that would hold the keys.

>Peter is also a fallible man, while Jesus is perfect,

And Christ, in His perfection, created a visible head of the Church.

>Why would Jesus establish a church on a fallible man (Peter is even rebuked by Paul), when He could instead build it on Himself as the foundation?

No clue, ask Christ.

>The argument just doesn't stand once you really analyze the scripture.

It seems to have stood in this fashion for over 2 millennia, but you, from other's interpretations, have decided otherwise.

>>779088

One more thing, friend, please think upon the incident of Core.

Core revolted when he accused Moses of "lifting themselves up amongst the holy", and yet, God Himself slew Core and his compatriots.

Even in the OT, God sought out a head, and established a clear hierarchical authority. You reject St. Peter, but would you too also reject Moses?

Is not St. Peter a type of Moses?

>>779088

>The rock that Jesus is building his church on is Peter's statement of belief that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Yes, He's referring specifically to the confession and to the "Christ, the Son of the living God" that Peter had just mentioned in Matthew 16:16.

We see this always in scripture as he is the stone that the builders rejected and the rock of 1 Corinthians 10:4. He is the corner of the foundation in Ephesians 2:20. He is the foundation in 1 Corinthians 3:11. And of course, the corner is at the foundation as Isaiah 28:16, which is the basis of 1 Peter 2:6, Matthew 21:42, Mark 12:10, Acts 4:11, states.

And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. — 1 Corinthians 10:4

This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. — Acts 4:11-12

>>779391

Thanks for sharing those verses.

>>777857

Just a passing reference it seems, meanwhile the Didache tells you several times to pray according to the Gospel

>8:3 And do not pray like the hypocrites, but pray as the Lord

commanded in His Gospel;

>15:7 But do your prayers and your almsgivings and all your deeds as

you find it in the Gospel of our Lord.

And in the Gospel we only find prayers to God

Wait, a Protestant is actually trying to use the Didache now?

>>779441

>Just a passing reference it seems

A passing reference is all the intercession of saints is. Literally calling and referencing them to pray to God for you as well. For the "prayer of a righteous man availeth much." - James 5:16. None of it is to the exclusion of God.

Protestants are the only people who think the intercession of saints somehow magically excludes God. Or that they alone and no one else prays to God except them. All of it is about God. You guys built a fantasy in your heads that takes intercession more seriously than even Catholics or Orthodox. And then you blame everyone else for your own failure to understand.

>>779450

Psalm 65:2

O thou that hearest prayer, unto thee shall all flesh come.

>>779546

And?

>>779391

Your problem is that you are purposely misreading Christ's words. He renames Simon, "Cephas" meaning, "Rock", and that upon this Rock (Cephas, the title He literally just gave Simon) His Church would be built.

To further reinforce St. Peter's prominence, Christ re-asserts Peter as the Head when the Apostles bicker amongst themselves (just as the Patriarchs and Bishops do today).

>We see this always in scripture as he is the stone that the builders rejected and the rock of 1 Corinthians 10:4. He is the corner of the foundation in Ephesians 2:20. He is the foundation in 1 Corinthians 3:11. And of course, the corner is at the foundation as Isaiah 28:16,

Yes, and Christ in His authority, dubs Peter and the Stone that He, the Corner-stone would build it upon, Christ both stone and builder of His own Church.

>>779391

Furthermore, if "Cephas" had no meaning, if Christ had simply…well, blundered, as your interpretation claims, then Cephas himself would have denied that he was the head of all the Apostle's. Instead, Christ reinforces him, Scripture very nearly places him first in all apostolic references, and Christ clarifies that whosoever is called to be high and mighty after His line, must be lowly and serve the people.

Despite whatever approbation you may pour upon the Popes, or the scandalous behavior of certain Popes, to live and die for the Church and Her people is literally their job, instituted divinely by Christ.

>>779029

>They also like to IP-hop if you look at the IDs.

Wouldn't want the mods to track my post history. A small price to pay for such freedoms.

If you want to know more about what they do, just let me know. I'm always here.

>>779678

>Wouldn't want the mods to track my post history.

>If you want to know more about what they do, just let me know. I'm always here.

John 3:20

>>779680

Then why rename Simon to literally Aramaic for Rock? There's no reason to it, unless you would accuse Christ of confusion.

>>779681

For the symbolism of the same event, Christ's charge to Peter

>>779694

It's not symbolism, and your interpretation is new. Not even the Orthodox, who deny Papal Supremacy, deny that St. Peter was given a special name with special authority that day.

>>779710

>it's not symbolism

So Jesus literally made Peter into a rock?

>>779710

You don't think he literally becomes a rock.. right? That's what I mean by "symbolism".

This is not a novel interpretation. I point to a source older than any pope, Paul in 1 Corinthians:

>"For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ," (1 Cor. 3:11).

>>779680

Couple things with that image.

First off, the power to bind and loose and the keys is said to be given in the future tense in Matthew 16. He says he WILL give it. Then in Matthew 18:18, Christ actually does give it to all of the disciples.

Matthew 18 is also where you turn to understand what this means. In Matthew 18:17, we are told directly what it means. It's talking about church discipline. Now this isn't broadly applicable to all Christians in that case, but actually, as you see in places like 1 Corinthians 5, it is applicable to Biblical church leadership. They make the final decision on what the church will do.

Secondly, the renaming of Peter took place before, as you said, in John 1:42. Part of the entire reason, in addition to the pun, why this would get brought up in Matthew 16:18 is so that you wouldn't confuse the two. If that part had been left out, you wouldn't know that thou Peter and this rock were separate. Fortunately we know that Jesus wasn't using incorrect grammar by referring to the same person twice in the same sentence by two different names. Which if you look at the original Greek (not any fake "aramaic" copy), you will see.

Thirdly, Peter in the book of Galatians couldn't be said to be preaching a false gospel, only that he was caught up in dissimulation through some kind of attempt to make some kind of gesture to the judaizers. You couldn't conclude from the scripture that he had actually been teaching that.

Lastly, there is no such thing as an office of a particular city. There is only churches and the two offices of pastor (aka bishop/overseer) and then of deacon. Successionism is not found anywhere except in the case of Judas Iscariot, which was a fulfillment of prophecy according to Acts 1. By that very example, you'd have to say those eleven apostles were likewise displaced in their office to suppose successionism. Even if you did this, it still wouldn't establish a specific office to a specific place. Churches are congregations, not buildings or land. And most of all they are not states. There's no point in listening to a state-church that claims otherwise, they're a mere political entity and illegitimate. It's illegitimate because none of it is found in the word of God. Same as with the pharisaical "oral traditions." Mark 7:7-13.

>>779726

Interesting point about the galatians

The text of the pic points connects "office" to "bishop", not to the city. That seems to be what you're affirming too.

>>779724

That's a ridiculous assertion, I already said "Cephas" was a Title, and Christ elaborated on what He meant by this Title, that His Church would be built upon St. Peter.

>"For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ," (1 Cor. 3:11).

Exactly, and upon whom did Jesus Christ proclaim He will build His Church? Cephas, being, Simon.

>>779726

>First off, the power to bind and loose and the keys is said to be given in the future tense in Matthew 16. He says he WILL give it. Then in Matthew 18:18, Christ actually does give it to all of the disciples.

So He gives that power to all the disciples, but somehow the Roman church is the only one that saves people?

>>779751

As usual, the Orthodox run in to assist the protestants in their error.

He gave power to all His disciples, but gave a particular power to St. Peter; the distinction that upon Cephas, the Church would be built (and thus, known).

The Catholic Church has never denied that the Orthodox has the apostolic tradition, or the succession, or valid sacraments, but they are still is complete schism; cutting themselves off from Cephas.

Photius was never justified, I have no idea how you guys can back that one.

>>779743

I think I've had another frustrating conversation with you before, do you always reddit space?

<"For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ," (1 Cor. 3:11)

>and upon whom did Jesus Christ proclaim He will build His Church? Cephas, being, Simon.

<foundation … is Jesus Christ

contradiction in terms

>>779755

>are you that guy I don't like?!

Probably.

>contradiction in terms

How? Christ is the corner-stone, He has the full authority, and in His full authority, He proclaimed Cephas as the stone His Church will be built and known. Makes sense, right?

>>779757

The verse says the foundation IS Jesus Christ, not "under the authority" of Christ.

>>779761

All authority is with the Son, anon. Christ, in this authority, proclaimed that St. Peter in turn would be the very stone that His Church would be built.

Don't like it? Blame Christ!

>>779726

>First off, the power to bind and loose and the keys is said to be given in the future tense in Matthew 16. He says he WILL give it. Then in Matthew 18:18, Christ actually does give it to all of the disciples.

Which is why both the Catholic and Orthodox both practice confession and penance. You understand that the Latin church is the seat of Peter and that originally the other rites were the seats of the other apostles, right?

> In Matthew 18:17, we are told directly what it means. It's talking about church discipline.

This is a verse about excommunication, which is also a power given to the church.

>Now this isn't broadly applicable to all Christians in that case

How is it not broadly applicable even by your interpretation?

>If that part had been left out, you wouldn't know that thou Peter and this rock were separate

The part in John is about the very first Disciple. It's natural that the very first part of a structure would be stone. As such there's a clear paralleled between the intention of each verse that's going over your head.

>By that very example, you'd have to say those eleven apostles were likewise displaced in their office to suppose successionism.

Which has been the tradition of the church since it's foundation going all the way back to Pope St. Clement I, who was directly taught by and succeeded Peter as the Bishop of Rome after his martyrdom. The same thing happened with the seats of the other Apostles. The trend of Prots needing to learn their history is very recurrent in this thread.

>>779764

You're dodging the direct statement of the verse

The foundation is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Affirm or deny?

>>779765

That's revisionist history.

>>779766

Christ built the church on the foundation of the Apostles. He is the Divine Builder just as his father is.

>>779773

Look up the first epistle of clement. He died in 99 AD, and is listed by Irenaeus and Tertullian as Bishop of Rome.

>>779773

The only one's revising history are the protestants, because you guys don't want to admit that you aren't the historic christian church.

>>779766

I am not "dodging the direct statement", you are using Christ's own words to contradict Christ's own actions. Christ is the corner-stone, but Simon is Cephas, the stone that the corner-stone chose.

>>779774

Yep.

>>779779

Are you trying to suggest 1 Clement proves the Pope's authority to intervene in other churches or something?

>>779787

Answer the yes or no question

This verse

<"For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ," (1 Cor. 3:11)

identifies Christ as the foundation which is laid

affirm, or deny?

>>779799

>Answer the yes or no question

>identifies Christ as the foundation which is laid affirm, or deny?

"Christ is the corner-stone, but Simon is Cephas, the stone that the corner-stone chose."

Christ is both corner-stone and builder, do you not recall what He told the Jews? "This Temple, I shall destroy and rebuild in three days."

>>779802

Textbook eisegesis

>>779795

>Are you trying to suggest 1 Clement proves the Pope's authority to intervene in other churches or something?

No, that can be found in Acts 11:1-18 and Acts 15:6-11

What I'm trying to show you is that the historic adherence to this "heretical successionism" you complain about. As I keep saying, HOW FAR BACK DO WE HAVE TO GO?! I give you a fist century document by a man shown to be the bishop of Rome after Peter's death, and suddenly you're the one dodging.

>>779807

Apparently God is incapable of using multiple metaphors… By your logic you could claim Christianity to be eisegesis of the OT.

>>779811

I literally just started posting in this thread, check posts under my ID. You want someone else

>>779802

That temple was His body, He knew He was going to die on the cross and rise again in 3 days.

>>779816

I mean, what I said applies broadly to all protestants anyways… I'm sorry, the questions/arguments are really similar to the point i lose track.

>>779811

>>779818

btw – how do either of those quotes prove that? Peter has a vision and speaks at a council (along with paul, james, and barnabas).

Did you guys already argue about Galatians 2 or am I early enough

>>779817

>That temple was His body, He knew He was going to die on the cross and rise again in 3 days.

No, he was referring to the old covenant and the old church, as well as literally to the first and second temples of Jerusalem, which was sacked and destroyed in 70 CE, in order to also fulfill Mark 13:2 and Matthew 24:2.

>>779821

"But he was speaking of the temple of his body." John 2:21

>>779819

apparently I'm too late

>>779822

Well that's a wrap folks.

>>779819

>Peter has a vision

Which he used to rebuke the circumcision party already present in the church in Jerusalem… which would have been a different church based on how y'all define the church.

>speaks at a council

He's given definitive say over the conclusion of the council. That's not to say he doesn't discuss and debate the subject matter with them, but it still puts him in a position of authority.

>>779825

It also puts James and Paul and Barnabas in a position of authority. Why does it put Peter above them?

>>779822

>John 2:21

Sorry, it's been a while since I reread John. Still working my way back from the OT and the Liturgical Cannon is in Luke atm. Don't know why the other anon didn't properly quote scripture though… What I say still applies though, as there are multiple correct interpretations of scripture. But don't worry, I can still argue!

>Yet Jesus has been counted worthy of as much more glory than Moses as the builder of a house has more honor than the house. (For every house is built by some one, but the builder of all things is God.) - Hebrews 3:3-4

>>779827

>It also puts James and Paul and Barnabas in a position of authority. Why does it put Peter above them?

Because he concluded the issue? I said this already… you can be in a seat of authority and still be subject to another authority. Likewise, you can be in a seat of authority and still seek aid and discussion from lesser peers.

>>779831

dw it's fine, i forget things too.

Peter isn't concluding the issue in Acts 15, if anything James is.

I'm looking back over this conversation and it seems like the point is that since Clement succeeded Peter, and wrote 1 Clement, "apostolic successionism" is 1st century. But 1 Clement, although I agree it is 1st century, never claims to have been written by Clement (that's tradition), it only says it was written from Rome. It also never claims to have been written by the successor of Peter or in the place where Peter was martyred or was first bishop – the earliest mention AFAIK to Peter going to Rome is Irenaeus, which is late 2nd century.

>>779029

>older is better

So should we go back to the old covenant?

And >>777807

And it could be said RCC started when it split from the rest of the church church in 1054.

>>779840

>Peter isn't concluding the issue in Acts 15, if anything James is.

He silences the debate among them. The whole argument I was responding to though was the claim of peter being able to intervene in other congregations. I've already argued about his general authority earlier in the thread, so I wasn't really trying to prove his authority as a whole, but rather specifically in that manner.

>1 Clement, although I agree it is 1st century, never claims to have been written by Clement

Which is why I noted that Saint Irenaeus and Tertullian cited him as the Bishop of Rome following Peter, both of these figures being pre-Nicaea. If it comes from Rome, late 1st century, and Clement is cited as being the bishop of Rome at that time by the Pre-Nicene church, protestants have no reason to doubt successionism… at least based off the typical "Romanism" argument I hear.

>>779848

Let's say Clement (who I agree was a bishop/presbyter at Rome) did write this epistle. What difference does that make? I can't think of anything Clement says in that epistle that contradicts Protestant beliefs. He definitely doesn't say a material apostolic succession is necessary.

Since Paul doesn't mention Peter in his epistle to the Romans and since there is a deafening silence in the church for 150 years with no claims of Peter going to Rome, I see no reason to think Irenaeus's claim isn't later (innacurate) tradition.

I like Tertullian by the way – did you know he rejected infant baptism?

>>779852

*inaccurate

>>779848

>He definitely doesn't say a material apostolic succession is necessary.

But it shows evidence of it prior to the "romanization of the church." That's the whole reason I cite the fathers in the first place. The primary protestant argument I've seen is that Nicaea somehow ruined the church and turned into a hollow political tool and meaningless traditions… yet there's evidence of them in the church centuries prior.

>Since Paul doesn't mention Peter in his epistle to the Romans and since there is a deafening silence in the church for 150 years with no claims of Peter going to Rome, I see no reason to think Irenaeus's claim isn't later (innacurate) tradition.

Who's to say he was there yet when the Epistle to the Romans was written? I've never seen a protestant reject St. Peters martyrdom because he isn't mentioned in the Epistle to the Romans.

>I like Tertullian by the way – did you know he rejected infant baptism?

Did you know I didn't write "St. Tertullian" for a reason?… He's like Origen: right on a lot of things, also wrong on a lot of things.

>>779852

>>779863

Don't know why I linked my post and not yours..

>>779863

>But it shows evidence of it prior to the "romanization of the church."

Evidence of what? A church at Rome existing? Of course!

I'm not making any claim about Constantine corrupting Christianity or something like that to be perfectly clear.

>Who's to say he was there yet when the Epistle to the Romans was written?

Because Jerome says "Simon Peter … pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero (i.e. 68 AD)."

If Peter went to Rome 25 years before 68 AD, he was there from 43 AD to 68 AD, and Romans was written in the mid-to-late 50's.

>Did you know I didn't write "St. Tertullian" for a reason?… He's like Origen: right on a lot of things, also wrong on a lot of things.

Origen is a broken clock that's right twice a day and Tertullian is a working clock. He's great, I especially like his later (Montanist) writings. Jerome mentions he wrote seven books "against the church" but unfortunately they've been lost.

Paul says that Apostles have the highest calling in the church. "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." -1 Cor 12:28

Unless you can argue that James was an apostle too, I doubt he had more authority than Peter. I'm not here to promote papal authority, but lets clear up apostolic authority at the very least.

If James was an apostle, then why was he so stationary? It seems to me that he was the overseer/bishop of the first and main metropolis (Jerusalem), and accorded great honor, and still very much a pillar in Paul's words.. but that still doesn't make him an apostle. An apostle is synonymous with missionary work, and he did none of that afaik. It seems like his primary mission to stay in Judaea and witness to the Jews, until time ran out for them. He set up right in the temple.

>>779874

>Evidence of what? A church at Rome existing? Of course!

OK, so you said its be real 1st century material by a bishop of the Roman church, right? So… here are some quotes:

>But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours; and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.

>For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.

So, you tell me that you assume Clement was the bishop of Rome and wrote this… How does this not prove apostolic successionism to you again? or have you never actually read this?

>Because Jerome says "Simon Peter … pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero (i.e. 68 AD)."

My point was that saying "he isn't mentioned = it never happened" isn't really how history works dude. It's like that whole "They never mention pant's in Book X, therefore nobody is wearing them" joke.

>>779877

James was very highly regarded in the early church, because not only was he Jesus's brother, but he was also the bishop of Jerusalem, which was the highest position in the early church. Chysostom writes: "Peter, James, and John, were both first called, and held a primacy among the disciples, and had also received their doctrines from Christ Himself." In fact, he was so highly regarded that in the early second century Gospel of Thomas, Jesus says, "Wherever you are, you will go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being."

>>779878

How do you think those quotes show the necessity of material apostolic succession? Because they mention presbyters and the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul? For all we know, Clement could have thought Peter was martyred in Jerusalem. I don't deny that Paul helped establish the church at Rome and that popes do have a succession going back to the first century, I just don't think it goes back to Peter.

>My point was that saying "he isn't mentioned = it never happened" isn't really how history works dude.

My point is that it's a big stretch to say Peter left Rome for a few months, notified Paul of it, and Paul decided to not mention Peter once in his epistle to the church that Peter founded because he was temporarily "out of town". And then nobody thinks to mention it until Irenaeus.

>>779874

>The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.

>Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the gospel first began to be preached? Truly, under the inspiration of the Spirit, he wrote to you concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos, because even then parties had been formed among you. But that inclination for one above another entailed less guilt upon you, inasmuch as your partialities were then shown towards apostles, already of high reputation, and towards a man whom they had approved. But now reflect who those are that have perverted you, and lessened the renown of your far-famed brotherly love. It is disgraceful, beloved, yea, highly disgraceful, and unworthy of your Christian profession, that such a thing should be heard of as that the most steadfast and ancient church of the Corinthians should, on account of one or two persons, engage in sedition against its presbyters. And this rumour has reached not only us, but those also who are unconnected with us; so that, through your infatuation, the name of the Lord is blasphemed, while danger is also brought upon yourselves.

>You therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue. For it is better for you that you should occupy a humble but honourable place in the flock of Christ, than that, being highly exalted, you should be cast out from the hope of His people. For thus speaks all-virtuous Wisdom: Behold, I will bring forth to you the words of my Spirit, and I will teach you my speech. Since I called, and you did not hear; I held forth my words, and you regarded not, but set at naught my counsels, and yielded not at my reproofs; therefore I too will laugh at your destruction; yea, I will rejoice when ruin comes upon you, and when sudden confusion overtakes you, when overturning presents itself like a tempest, or when tribulation and oppression fall upon you. For it shall come to pass, that when you call upon me, I will not hear you; the wicked shall seek me, and they shall not find me. For they hated wisdom, and did not choose the fear of the Lord; nor would they listen to my counsels, but despised my reproofs. Wherefore they shall eat the fruits of their own way, and they shall be filled with their own ungodliness. Proverbs 1:22-33 …For, in punishment for the wrongs which they practised upon babes, shall they be slain, and inquiry will be death to the ungodly; but he that hears me shall rest in hope and be undisturbed by the fear of any evil.

>>779884

I've read the epistle bro, what's your point

>The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God.

That's a weird rendering, the translation I have says

>The apostles were given the gospel for us by the Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ was sent forth from God.

>>779881

>How do you think those quotes show the necessity of material apostolic succession?

I wasn't done yet… >>779884

>For all we know, Clement could have thought Peter was martyred in Jerusalem.

Again, you're leaning on the whole "they didn't say X" argument, which doesn't necesarily work when all other sources (secondary as they may be) say otherwise.

>popes do have a succession going back to the first century, I just don't think it goes back to Peter.

That's a stance counter to protestant teaching from what I've been told.

>My point is that it's a big stretch to say Peter left Rome for a few months, notified Paul of it, and Paul decided to not mention Peter once in his epistle to the church that Peter founded because he was temporarily "out of town". And then nobody thinks to mention it until Irenaeus

Ok… say he came after then… We're never told when or Where peter died in the bible, nor are told such things about most of the apostles. So either they're immortal, or we have to look elsewhere for that information. That's how history works.

>>779886

>I've read the epistle bro, what's your point

<And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe.

<and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry.

<But that inclination for one above another entailed less guilt upon you, inasmuch as your partialities were then shown towards apostles, already of high reputation, and towards a man whom they had approved. But now reflect who those are that have perverted you, and lessened the renown of your far-famed brotherly love. It is disgraceful, beloved, yea, highly disgraceful, and unworthy of your Christian profession, that such a thing should be heard of as that the most steadfast and ancient church of the Corinthians should, on account of one or two persons, engage in sedition against its presbyters.

<You therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue. For it is better for you that you should occupy a humble but honourable place in the flock of Christ, than that, being highly exalted, you should be cast out from the hope of His people.

How does this not assert the authority of a hierarchical church that succeeded the Apostles to you?

>That's a weird rendering

It was free online. IDK how recent it is.

>>779881

>James was very highly regarded in the early church, because not only was he Jesus's brother, but he was also the bishop of Jerusalem, which was the highest position in the early church. Chysostom writes: "Peter, James, and John, were both first called, and held a primacy among the disciples, and had also received their doctrines from Christ Himself." In fact, he was so highly regarded that in the early second century Gospel of Thomas, Jesus says, "Wherever you are, you will go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being."

Same anon here.. using VPN so ID may have changed.

James the Just is not James the Son of Zebedee - that's James the Greater. He was an Apostle and died in Spain, according to tradition. Not Jerusalem. Think about it.. John would be the "brother of the Lord" too, if James the Greater was the same James. But he's not.

There's also James the Lesser (son of Alphaeus), but he isn't James the Just either.

>>779891

>There's also James the Lesser (son of Alphaeus), but he isn't James the Just either.

Wait, scratch that. He could be this James. Just not the son of Zebedee.

>>779889

>Again, you're leaning on the whole "they didn't say X" argument, which doesn't necesarily work when all other sources (secondary as they may be) say otherwise.

>So either they're immortal, or we have to look elsewhere for that information. That's how history works.

That's a problem when those secondary sources are 150 years late and when there are a ton of earlier Christian writings that show no knowledge of it. Of course, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but the collective silence of the church is more than just "absence of evidence" IMO – it's not at all what you would expect if Peter was actually martyred at Rome.

>That's a stance counter to protestant teaching from what I've been told.

idk man, i've never met a protestant that disputed it other than some meme constantine destroyed christianity and invented the trinity kinds of people

>How does this not assert the authority of a hierarchical church that succeeded the Apostles to you?

It definitely shows me there was a church at Rome in the 1st century with presbyterian polity. Idk what you mean exactly

>>779891

Idk where James of Zebedee or of Alphaeus come into this, the James in Acts is James the Just and that's the James that was bishop of Jerusalem, given a very high status in Thomas, and who Chrysostom (seems to be) talking about

>>779896

nvm about Chrysostom, I reread it

>>779896

>That's a problem when those secondary sources are 150 years late and when there are a ton of earlier Christian writings that show no knowledge of it.

That still changes nothing when they are the only ones we have.

>Of course, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but the collective silence of the church is more than just "absence of evidence" IMO – it's not at all what you would expect if Peter was actually martyred at Rome.

You could also say you would expect more historic accounts of Christ's Miracles if such amazing feats actually happened in a Roman settlement… Just to put it in perspective.

>idk man, i've never met a protestant that disputed it other than some meme constantine destroyed christianity and invented the trinity kinds of people

It's just odd because it provides some historic basis for Catholicism.

I'm going to sleep, I'll read your post tomorrow and we can talk more then

>>779029

>Either way, quoting a stance the church no longer hold to me has nothing to do with the current discussion.

Nope, you're not getting out of it that easily.

>>780000

>Nope, you're not getting out of it that easily.

I gave an explanation beyond that… also you didn't even respond to the right post.

>>779903

>That still changes nothing when they are the only ones we have.

It doesn't matter if they're the only sources we have if they're late and unreliable. What actually happened to Peter may just be unrecorded – I think he was martyred at Jerusalem because of the reference to Babylon in 1 Peter, and IIRC Erasmus would agree with me.

>You could also say you would expect more historic accounts of Christ's Miracles if such amazing feats actually happened in a Roman settlement… Just to put it in perspective.

We have dozens from the first century. But it's impossible to prove, historically, that Jesus performed miracles, any more than miracles can be proven about Apollonius of Tyana. We believe he did because of inspired scripture.

>It's just odd because it provides some historic basis for Catholicism.

For clarity, it wouldn't matter to us if Peter was the first bishop of Rome, although I think the chances of that are near zero. We are more concerned with a succession of belief than a material apostolic succession – what difference does having a line of bishops that go back to Peter make when Catholics are not faithful to the beliefs and teachings of Peter?

>>780093

I'm >>779904 btw, ID changed

>>780093

>It doesn't matter if they're the only sources we have if they're late and unreliable.

They may be later, but it's your personal assumption that their unreliable. The whole point is that we don't know. We can only go off of what generations of the past have told us. Just like how we don't actually know entirely what happened in ancient Greece, Egypt, Mesopotamia, etc.

>We have dozens from the first century.

We have acknowledgement of Christianity as a cult in ancient Rome. Yet no Roman or source outside of the Gospels actually recorded any of Jesus' Miracles first hand… which, you know, someone rising from the dead would probably make the local paper. Or at least be a footnote or something on some document. You'd think you'd want to tell the higher-ups something like that happened.

>But it's impossible to prove, historically, that Jesus performed miracles, any more than miracles can be proven about Apollonius of Tyana. We believe he did because of inspired scripture.

Naturally we take it on faith that the Gospels are the inspired word of God based on our interpretations relative to the Old Testament Scriptures (which we also take in faith to be inspired word of God) and other factors in our lives, the world, etc. Such is the nature of the human condition. It's like Kierkegaard.

I take it on faith that The Lord wouldn't let his church spiral into cultic madness after the death of the Apostles, and that the generations of Catholics that followed weren't just pulling their beliefs out of their ass, particularly given how faithful, devout, and knowledgeable of the scriptures many of them were. You may disagree, or say that the sources are unreliable, but ultimately there's no way to reconcile our two beliefs, because they aren't matters of any facts that can be proven through empirical means. We can never actually know what happened within that time span because there is nothing but void space. There are more matters of faith in life than just biblical ones… but that's probably getting too existential for the topic at hand.

>what difference does having a line of bishops that go back to Peter make when Catholics are not faithful to the beliefs and teachings of Peter?

Because I've spent more than enough time and effort in this thread showcasing a biblical basis for Catholic practice. So those two things in conjunction further strengthen my argument.

>>780093

>what difference does having a line of bishops that go back to Peter make when Catholics are not faithful to the beliefs and teachings of Peter?

26He shall cry out to me: Thou art my father: my God, and the support of my salvation.

27And I will make him my firstborn, high above the kings of the earth.

28I will keep my mercy for him for ever: and my covenant faithful to him.

29And I will make his seed to endure for evermore: and his throne as the days of heaven.

30And if his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments:

31If they profane my justices: and keep not my commandments:

32I will visit their iniquities with a rod: and their sins with stripes.

33But my mercy I will not take away from him: nor will I suffer my truth to fail.

34Neither will I profane my covenant: and the words that proceed from my mouth I will not make void.

The sins and failings of the Catholic laity and clergy have nothing to do with the veracity of Christ's Church. Find me a Church free of the reprobate. There isn't one, and there will not be one until the end.

>>780162

>Yet no Roman or source outside of the Gospels actually recorded any of Jesus' Miracles first hand… which, you know, someone rising from the dead would probably make the local paper. Or at least be a footnote or something on some document.

Flavius Josephus is supposed to have referred to the miracles on a positive note, nobody can find it though. Wonder if they were tampered with.

>>780211

I know a lot was supposedly lost in the Siege of Jerusalem. And like I said earlier, Christ prophesied the Siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, so apparently whatever we lost was by the will/act of God Which in my perspective, was meant to serve as a further test of faith

>>780162

>Yet no Roman or source outside of the Gospels actually recorded any of Jesus' Miracles first hand…

Christ's miracles are recorded in the talmud, but in a negative light, IIRC.

>>780268

>Christ's miracles are recorded in the talmud, but in a negative light, IIRC.

But one could easily say that they were added purely as a result of Christianity gaining strength though. That's why a first-hand Roman source would be more meaningful: they were pagan and therefore were completely on the outside of the situation. Yeah, they maintained a relationship with the Pharisees, and there are examples like the massacre of the innocents of which there is also no historical Roman record But overall throughout the NT they're just sort of there.

Pilate's relationship with them seems rocky at best, and Christ preformed several miracles for soldiers as well as preached to them. It just seems like a very noteworthy event to leave out of the roman record all the way until the Apostles are preaching.

I'm >>780093

>>780210

reread bro, that wasn't the point i was making. i said beliefs

>>780162

It's not my personal assumption at all, it's the consensus of scholarship and based on facts of church history. It's true that we can't reliably ascertain a lot of the history of the ancient world – but that doesn't mean we should accept every source we find. If we lower our historical standards to make a historical case for the miracles and resurrection of Jesus (or for Peter's martyrdom at Rome), we have to accept as accurate the many accounts of miracle-workers of antiquity. That's my issue with people like William Lane Craig – the resurrection and miracles in general cannot be proven historically (or even demonstrated to be likely), and must be taken on faith.

About your newspaper point: a lot less was recorded then than now (and there weren't any newspapers in the modern sense, just official notices from Rome). For example, the only reason we know the earthquake in Acts is fact and not fiction is because of a single sentence in a Roman historian (don't remember who off the top of my head).

>I take it on faith that The Lord wouldn't let his church spiral into cultic madness after the death of the Apostles, and that the generations of Catholics that followed weren't just pulling their beliefs out of their ass, particularly given how faithful, devout, and knowledgeable of the scriptures many of them were.

I don't believe that the church immediately spiraled into cultic madness. Throughout the history of the church up to the Reformation there were people who maintained biblical views of salvation.

For example, in 1 Clement which we were discussing earlier we read, "So too we who have been called through his will in Christ Jesus are made upright not through ourselves – through our own wisdom or under­standing or piety or the deeds we have done with a devout heart – but through faith, through which the all-powerful God has made all these people upright, from the begin­ning of the ages." (32:4) And similar ideas are expressed in most other apostolic fathers.

Augustine also had a very God-centered soteriology. Since I don't think I need to prove that about Augustine, one other great example is the 6th century Augustinian bishop Fulgentius of Ruspe, who writes:

"These are visited freely by the mercy of God before the end of this present life; they are moved for their salvation with a contrite and humbled heart and all by the divine gift are converted to penance to which they are divinely predestined to free grace, so that, converted, they may not perish but have life eternal. Without a doubt, these are all whom, according to the proclamation of the blessed Paul, 'God wills to be saved and to come to the knowledge of truth.' Because he who has done all things he wanted wants this, what he wants he always does invincibly."

Going on to write:

"That Jerusalem, insofar as it attained to its will, did not wish its children to be gathered to the Savior, but still he gathered all whom he willed. In this it wanted to resist the omnipotent but was unable to because God who, as it is written, 'Whatever the Lord pleases, he does,' converts to himself whomever he wills by a free justification, coming beforehand with his gift of superabounding grace on those whom he justly damn if he wished. Therefore, when the Apostle Peter says that God is 'patient, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance,' let us not so understand the word 'all' as stated above, as if there is no one who will not do a fitting penance, but we must understand 'all' here as those to whom God gives penance in such a way that he may also give them the gift of perseverance, i.e. those who are converted by the prevenient divine mercy in such a way that by the same subsequent mercy, they will never go back to the serious sins which they have renounced."

(To Euthymius II)

Even on the other end of the spectrum: Justin Martyr, who emphasizes salvation by works and free will in his Apologies, has an assurance of salvation in his Martyrdom.

>Because I've spent more than enough time and effort in this thread showcasing a biblical basis for Catholic practice.

Catholic practice can really only be defended in the context of tradition. The basis of our faith is the same as articulated by Theodoret: "Do not, I beg you, bring in human reason. I shall yield to scripture alone."

>>777234

>Church that came first has to be the rightful one.

well, take a look at Jacob and Esau. Heresies like purgatory and salvation by works merit a loss of birthright.

>>780546

>reread bro, that wasn't the point i was making. i said beliefs

I apologize, God bless you.

>How do Protestants cope with their Church being less than a millenium old?

Our Church, the Church of Jesus Christ, is as old as when it has been founded by the Messiah.

When our Church institutions have been founded, doesn't matter

>>777234

I believe philosophy refines itself with time, and that the church exists as a philosophical front for the spiritual/metaphysical.

>>788567

If it was so philosophical, St. Paul wouldn't have outright called the Gospel "foolishness" to the world.

"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."

It didn't even attempt to answer philosophy until the times of Sts. Irenaeus and Justin Martyr when they finally gave a defense to the Hellenic/Roman outsiders who had written off Christianity as a religion for housewives and slaves. And those who outright attempted to merge philosophy got the boot and are forever considered heretics (Marcion, Origen, etc).

The Church Jesus built is certainly transformative and powerful and changes society for the better.. but it's never been for Platonic or Far Eastern notions of enlightenment. And the least in it's kingdom are in fact the greatest.

>>788571

Your interpretation is debatable, St. Paul is calling preaching to pagans and the like a sort of "foolishness", not the Gospel itself, nor the teachings or traditions contained within and without through the Church.

>It didn't even attempt to answer philosophy

Nonsense, as St. Paul told the Areopagites, God did in fact wink at them, and God's work is empirical to a certain degree. But no philosopher arrived at the Truth, which is only available through the Son. Philosophy through the revelation of God is more than biblical.

>And those who outright attempted to merge philosophy got the boot and are forever considered heretics (Marcion, Origen, etc)

And what of Augustine or Aquinas, friend?

Catholics are really just modern day Pharisees.