/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

You evaluate every argument for each doctrine on it's own merit. The title of "Church father" is just a helpful historical term, like we say "founding fathers" for US history.

>>792374

But KJV is not a very good translation

>>792376

Ephesians 2: 8-9

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

>not of works

>>792378

>James

>not by faith only

>Ephesians

>not of works

Well it appears we are at an impasse. If only there were a body of interpretations and teachings handed down to us by the Apostles and their students who explained what we were supposed to have learned from the Bible.

>>792372

Origen did not teach pre-existence or universalism. For a full explanation on that I can give none better than St. Pamphilus the Martyr's Apology for Origen where he goes over these things in detail using Origen's own writings, not the interpolated copies of many we have now, along with Rufinus' addendum text.

https://b-ok.cc/book/2518184/6c9b63

St. Eusebius certainly was not an Arian. At most, he defended Arius from complete condemnation and wanted him to reconcile with the Church, but he never subscribed to Arian doctrine and indeed he signed the Council of Nicaea's Creed.

Tatian is not a Church Father meanwhile, I have never heard him referred to as such. Given how quickly he went into heresy after St. Justin's martyrdom I am rather surprised to hear him referred to as such.

The only one without defense is sadly Tertullian, but we do have a clear understanding now of which of his writings are orthodox and which are Montanist. I recommend this site to see the difference, and recommend reading his works from when he was fully Christian:

http://www.tertullian.org/works.htm

They're interesting sources because they are influential on people who were actual saints, but those guys themselves aren't saints or Church Fathers. They're all in Hell, except maybe for Eusebius who didn't die as a heretic (but is also not canonized).

>authoritative voice among apostolics

Literally all the "Fathers" you mentioned are condemned heretics in the Orthodox Church.

>>792382

>muh misunderstood origen

DBH please go home. Despite whatever unfortunate influence he had on actual Fathers he's an irredeemable heretic of the highest order, one of the contemptable persons in the unholy trinity of heresiarchs with the others being Arius and Nestorius. Please read the Synodikon if you remained confused.

>>792403

>synodikon

Wrong council, sorry.

>>792372

You know many early Christians especially martyrs were illiterate plebeians, right?

The Church fathers did not believe in Sola Scriptura. They didn't believe that there was a dialectic between the church tradition and the scriptures.

>>792372

>How can we trust the Bible if we believe it was compiled by heretics

Like you to answer this protties, the Bible is only the word of God if it was declared so by the church God left on the earth or God himself, because if it was declared by just "a bunch of men" its not the word of God.

>>792372

>Eusebius was an Arian

Why are you telling lies?

>>792412

I'm sorry anon I'm a Christian, so I can't believe the very words of God only have so much authority as granted to them by mere men.

>>792419

The scripture is correct but so are the fathers.

False dialectics will lead to falsehood.

>>792419

Please tell me what makes the bible the word of God then

>>792372

Because we have the guidance of the Church tradition for centuries after them, and for centuries before us, to understand.

You're right. Let's trust pastor Jim instead!

>>792393

>They're all in Hell

Did God appointed you as head of His statistics or Justice departments?

>>792470

What? I think god should appoint you to a fu cking dictionary

>>792470

God Himself told us that they would be in Hell. Whoever gathers without Him scatters. And we know from tradition that all the non-Orthodox go to Hell when they die.

>>792379

>Well it appears we are at an impasse.

What are you talking about? James 2:14-26 is about justification before men.

>>792479

>all the non-Orthodox go to Hell when they die.

>WE WUZ DA TRUE CHURCH N SHEIIIIIT

Lmao no. Nice try heretic

>>792484

There is no salvation outside the Church, because the Church is salvation. If you believe there is no salvation without Christ, then there is no salvation without the Church, the Body of Christ.

I assume you are a Protestant. Where in the scriptures do you see that the Church is invisible and not a clearly visible community?

>>792485

Not him, but even as a strict Orthodox I ask, why were St. Dismas the Good Thief and others like him saved?

Why did Christ allow the others who were casting out devils to continue? Why did Christ simply tell those who asked for forgiveness that they were forgiven and that they should just depart and sin no more, why no mention of baptism and such?

>>792485

The Church isn't a physical location or organization, it's anyone that's accepted the Holy Spirit

>>792527

Yes. The Holy Spirit cannot contradict himself though.

>>792485

I am Orthodox. And church didnt declare that some individual is damned, but declared saints. And you shouldn't either, that is not your prerogative.

>>792523

>why were St. Dismas the Good Thief and others like him saved?

The sacraments give us communion with Christ. St Dismas had communion with Christ, in fact he even died with Him.

As for the Old Testament righteous, they were united to Christ when He came down into Hell to rescue them.

>Why did Christ allow the others who were casting out devils to continue?

Because no one who does a miracle in His name can speak ill of Him. This means that they truly know Who He is, in other words, they are theologically Orthodox even if they are not canonical. I do not suggest that such people are condemned, even if them being in a non-canonical situation is not healthy.

However, someone who is heterodox cannot use the name of Jesus, even if they speak it with their lips, because, not having the true doctrine about who He is, they can have no communion with Him. See Acts 19:11-17.

>Why did Christ simply tell those who asked for forgiveness that they were forgiven and that they should just depart and sin no more, why no mention of baptism and such?

The sacrament of Baptism gives us to be united to the death of Jesus and resurrected with Him. He spoke of this, both about His death being a baptism (to the disciples) and about the sacrament of baptism being given through water (to Nicodemus).

When He healed illnesses and forgave sins, this was the sacrament of Anointing of the Sick.

>>792527

I agree with you. The Church is not a location, nor is it a worldly organization or institution. The Church, however, is visible, and its boundaries can be known.

>>792372

Who else are you going to follow? Protestant pastor Jim? Or the men who established the canon and persevered through times of real suffering for Christ?

>>792416

Andrew Louth says he was sympathetic to semi Arianism but repented at nicea

>>792450

What made it the word of God when God spoke to Moses? See, the problem here is "word of God" isn't just some meaningless buzzword we throw around, it literally means what it actually says, "word of God". The bible is the word of God because men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit, not because the pope gave God permission to speak. How exactly is your church supposed to have "made" scripture the word of God anyway if it wasn't in the first place? Is the pope a god, able to change reality just by declaring it to be so?

>>792483

Paul literally mentions that this type of faith cannot save, *not* that this cannot present a good example.

>>792657

Right so how do you know that the scriptures were guided by the Holy Spirit, what is your requirements to differentiate scripture from non-scripture and fakes etc.

>>792713

Number of actual scriptural citations: zero.

>>792774

Also 1 Corinthians 4:1-4 ties this together.

Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.

Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.

But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.

For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.

>>792376

>And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.

Luke 7:29 KJV

I'll let you connect the dots

>>792379

I've always been fascinated by Cathodox logic. "Oh, there is a part of scripture that is hard for me to understand. I guess there is no other possible conceivable way to understand it without 1500 years of church history which also isn't consistent. "

>Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

Acts 17:11

I bet that a Catholic would stop the barean Jews in their tracks and be like "No! Do not judge for yourself if our dogmas are true. Just listen to the pope and the so called infallible magisterium. "

>>792780

>I guess there is no other possible conceivable way to understand it without 1500 years of church history which also isn't consistent.

That's disingenuous, or at least sounds disingenuous.

You should know that Scripture tells us to rely on the Apostles' and their teaching (quite literally, "rely on our traditions") and even the Eunuch admitted he could not know the scriptures without an Apostle.

If the Berean Jews were so noble, why did they need the New Testament? And if you admit that being noble wasn't 1:1 with being saved (without the Gospel) why do you then pretend that accepting the New Testament does not also means accepting the Apostles?

>>792785

Paul warned of those who would come after him speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them. This is in Acts 20. Right after this he entrusts them to the word of God. And in 2 Timothy 3 Paul again tells Timothy to know of whom he has learned scripture, which is the word of God. So yes the existence of false teachers who came to draw after them disciples was already predicted. And according to Galatians 1:8-9 and Mark 7:7-13 we know exactly who the interposers are, it's those who lay aside the commandment of God in favor of the tradition of men. They like the visuals, the feelings and the rituals which men have made, they like the sayings that men have devised, but have no regard for the substance of Scripture in its inspiration. And the Bible's existence, uncorrupted, continually stands as constant proof and a visual reminder of this. He is ready to show the way to anyone who seek the right ways, the ways of the Lord, and has his word prepared for them.

>>792774

That's some serious mental gymnastics. You're not even arguing with anon anymore, you're arguing with Christ himself.

As stated plainly in >>792773 even the demons have believe but are not saved. Works are not about justification before men, works and faith are derivatives of each other. If you have no works, you have no faith ergo you must have works to have faith.

Salvation requires faith requires works, therefore salvation requires works.

>>792796

If the Bible truly encapsulates all of Christianity, can you tell me where in the Bible you find a commandment to only rely on the Bible for spiritual guidance?

>>792372

Tertullian also formed the notion of the Trinity. Are you going to disregard that part because he was heretical on other things?

St. Ambrose, I believe, taught that if the words 'I baptize you in the name of Christ' are used during baptism, that it's a valid baptism, which is clearly wrong.

Etc.

And because of this human failings, Christ gave the Church the authority to safeguard and teach the truth and the Church alone has this authority.

>>792375

If the KJV isn't a good translation, then nothing is a good translation.

>>792405

You really like to ignore the metaphorical beam in the eye of the Catholic Church.

Mass literary is only a recent development but prots can’t get their heads around that. >>792804

>>792376

>>792378

>MUH SOLAS

never mind the verses that disprove your solas. Let's ignore those.

So tired of prots

>>792804

>You're not even arguing with anon anymore, you're arguing with Christ himself.

What exactly am I supposed to be arguing with here? Is there a scripture somewhere you'd like to cite or are you placing yourself in his shoes right now?

>As stated plainly in >>792773 even the demons have believe but are not saved.

Don't misquote scripture. It says they believe there is one God. Similar to what yids believe, but that's not saving them.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. - John 14:6

>Works are not about justification before men,

Are we making general statements about works right now? Ok, so are you emphasizing your works above God's? Because God's works save.

>can you tell me where in the Bible you find a commandment to only rely on the Bible for spiritual guidance?

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. - 2 Timothy 3:16-17

>If the Bible truly encapsulates all of Christianity,

No clue what this is supposed to mean. Do you mean all doctrine like I just explained earlier?

>That's some serious mental gymnastics.

How is quoting James 2:14 directly, explaining how it ties in to the next verses, and quoting James 2:18 directly hard to understand, or do you just say this no matter what?

>>793200

>Similar to what yids believe,

I should say, what they supposedly believe. And what a lot of people who reject the Son supposedly believe.