/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>838753

Every one is an individual, while denominations are more of a construct to help categorize beliefs but they are imperfect at what they do. No two people perfectly agree on every point. It doesn't help much to talk about the behavior of individuals on a denomination to denomination level then, because it's more likely those individuals' behavior is influenced by their individual beliefs; which might have a correlation to denomination but it is not really caused by that abstract concept itself, rather they fall into a particular denominational category as a result of the same beliefs that also tend to make them act a certain way. It's the underlying beliefs then, that matter first. Other people might also end up in the same denomination for different reasons or sets of beliefs, largely depending on how we define the limits of what is inside of each denomination, which is usually impossible to entirely agree upon, since, if we want to be rigorous and make meaningful conclusions, it is not acceptable to simply base it on what each person claims to be.

For this reason, especially because we are not even all agreed on the definitions, I would say it makes no sense to claim that all of a particular denomination either agree or disagree but it makes more sense to look at each person from an individual level.

>Protestant and Orthodox each address the issues from the perspective of an informed theological and historical argument which is worth debating.

I've noticed something different. There are catholics. protestants and EO's that all have the same spirit. And there are Catholics, protestants, and EO's that don't. There are people here who sound like they hate everyone that argue forcefully for one religion or the other and they are as adamant as they can be that they're right, and I just think "Why would I listen to you? you obviously hate everyone".

>You shall know them by their fruits.

>>838753

>The Catholic (tends to) quote their catechism as law and appeal to authority.

Not all, but most have a juridical bent. I wouldn't say it's a straight appeal to authority however, since some tend to dislike their own popes and bishops. It's more an appeal to some kind of magisterial authority - and often an old one at that, since you can't even count on which one scoffs at the modern Catechism or not. Either way, they're tyrants or peons with Stolkholm syndrome who defend tyrants. It's what made it so impossible for EO to originally get along in the first place, and Protestants to go their own way in the first place. It probably won't change and you should ignore them.

>>838753

>When are we going to admit that it is the protestants and the EOs on this board who are in friendly alliance opposed to the catholic posters?

The EOs and RCs often debate theology, and it can get heated, but that does not make both parties "opposed" to one another. Likewise, the EO posters choosing not to engage in s—flinging towards Protestants does not mean they are allied to your 33,000 denoms. When's the last time you've heard of Orthodox Christians visiting Protestant churches or gathering together in song and prayer with Protestants? It just doesn't happen.

>the old meme about protestants being the "other" needs to be put to rest

I'm sorry it hurts to be excluded, but Protestants are all over the place with their theology that it's hard not to just lump them in an "Other" category. If an Orthodox hermit stumbled upon a non-denominational worship service, with tattooed hipsters banging on drums, congregants waving their hands in the air, and lights flashing all over the room, the hermit is liable to mistake it for a pagan ritual. Protestantism is just not in line with traditional Christianity.

>Imo it rose from a bias where imageboard types (political dissidents) made a pretty surface level judgment about their American protestant culture being modern and the catholic option being trad.

Well, Catholics are the ones with traditions dating back to the time of Christ (and earlier, even). Protestants, on the other hand, seem to have nothing but disdain for tradition and are constantly looking for ways to modernize their churches.

bump

>The Catholic (tends to) quote their catechism as law and appeal to authority.

Yes, the authority of Christ our Lord.

Lords means you obey him. He Jesus established a church. God Created me, I am his, and I owe the God all my love. I don't disobey.

Sorry but Catholic means being Catholic, and yes, it is Church law we avoid heretics who would lead us to hell.

>>838940

>I'm sorry it hurts to be excluded, but Protestants are all over the place with their theology that it's hard not to just lump them in an "Other" category.

Fun fact, we once tried to get Canterbury to unite with us, for various reasons.

Looked like it was working, but when we had some actual conferences to nail everything down, we found out the Anglican Communion is all over the place when it comes to protestant influence and dogma.

Really made our bishops bluescreen.

This was before the liberal faction happened in the 60's, btw.

>>844618

>Yes, the authority of Christ our Lord.

<the pope is Jesus Christ

>>844669

>the pope is Jesus Christ

Arguing in bad faith.

The Pope is the Vicar of Christ.

If there is a valid Pope.

And that doesn't mean a Pope cannot sin.

Jesus Christ, Our Lord, is perfect and never sins.

If you're going to lie about the Catholic Church… well, just don't.

>>838753

Its obvious the people who worship the guy in a fish hat are in a cult, much like Mormonism or 7th Day Adventism.

>>844671

Nice, but who are these people who "worship the guy in the fish hat". The Roman Catholics, for example, only Worship the Triune God and don't wear "fish hats".

Please be honest, name them. You aren't bearing false witness in the name of the LORD, are you?

>>844671

>7th Day Adventism

There are definitely Adventist cults (Branch Davidians, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc), but not 7th Day Adventists proper. The kookiest things they believe are kosher diets. And having the same reliance on "secret" alternate history as some Baptists. That is, they believe they're part of a secret stream of churches throughout the ages that were counter to anything known in any history book or landmark. Neither Baptists or Adventists can find historical precedents of their belief systems, so they both created a make-believe stream of pre-Baptist "Baptists" and pre-Adventist "Adventists" in the early church. It's just massive cope and kind of sad. But not exactly cultish. They still believe in the Trinity and have similar ethics as everyone else.

>>844954

Landmarkists are a small small minority of Baptists

>>844956

He did say "some baptists", not "all baptists".

>>844972

True

>>844972

Yes, just some. With Adventists, it's all of them. I almost wonder if this is a recent development with Baptists. Or if they outright adapted Adventist propaganda for themselves. There is no hint of this silliness even in the 19th century with Spurgeon and others.

Imagine thinking that Protestants are able to appeal to anything except subjective opinion and some random German guy who had a hissy fit.

Everybody appeals to authority. Protestants just think that their own interpretation of a book is a legitimate authority, and place themselves above 2000 years of Church councils. This is peak arrogance. Every Protestant is their own "pope". Ask 2 protestants, get three answers.

>>844975

>I almost wonder if this is a recent development with Baptists. Or if they outright adapted Adventist propaganda for themselves. There is no hint of this silliness even in the 19th century with Spurgeon and others.

It's other way around.

Adventists were born of the hardcore conspiratorial fringe of baptism.

Related movements that emerged from that trainwreck are the JW, the Mormons, and nowadays, the INFB.

>>844975

I wouldn't really call it new.

The Edinburgh Encyclopedia, Vol 3, p. 251. (1830)

>It must have already occurred to our readers, that the baptists are the same sect of Christians which we formerly described under the appellation of ANABAPTISTS. Indeed, this seems to have been their great leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present day.

This quotation alone predates adventism entirely.

>>845117

<denying repentance to own the Pope

Nothing in that quote is wrong tho.

>>845184

Fair enough. But for them to consider the Anabaptists some ancient tradition going back to Tertullian is even more laughable. They seem to just pick these names out of thin air, without knowing anything about the people involved. They somehow think that anything not "establishment" or Roman Catholic is magically Baptist and fair game to attach themselves to.

The truth is that Tertullian (and Monatists in general) were charismatics and hardcore ascetics. Absolutely the most rigid "works" based sect besides Judaizers. This is nothing like any Baptist or even Anabaptist. Both are known for streamlining and simplifying the Christian life and salvation to it's bare essentials (Faith). Not creating more complexity. Tertullian himself was so off the wall that he considered even marriage a sin, and only a necessarily evil at best.

>>845117

<denying repentance to own the Pope

Nothing in that quote is wrong tho. He said if they have good will and searching for God.

>God’s authority

How does God exercise His authority? Through the Protestant’s interpretation of the Bible? Surely not. If so which one? There’s multiple denominations each with it’s own of interpretation. How do you know you particular choice of interpretation is the right one and not the one or the other several thousand of the other denominations? What if you’re wrong and the Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians or something is the right one? That’s the fatal flaw of Protestantism. Finding the “true” denom is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Oops you picked the wrong you’re outta luck.

>inb4 we don’t have thousands of denoms

You do. Even if there’s only 2 or 3 that’s still much that proves it’s false. Your flock has been scattered.

>>845194

>He said if they have good will and searching for God.

He didn't mean those words in the way you mean those words. Interpreting that quote in an orthodox way requires you to place it in a historical context other than the 21st century. It is quite obvious what he meant, it's not like he didn't know how those words would be understood.

>How does God exercise His authority?

Through His word which was given to mankind once for all for the guidance of the Church, the edification of the saints, and the conversion of the unbelieving.

>Through the Protestant’s interpretation of the Bible?

Once I was speaking to a homophile, I quoted to her the verbatim words of Leviticus 20:13 to demonstrate that God did not approve of homosexual behavior. Her response was "that's just your interpretation". That's you right now. You're making a homophile argument because you likewise do not wish to submit to God.

>How do you know you particular choice of interpretation is the right one and not the one or the other several thousand of the other denominations?

You are not to interpret any word of scripture on the basis of what men say about it. What you don't understand is we do not grant to any man the authority to determine the meaning of scripture, unlike you for whom scripture is a dead letter and who hangs instead on every word of the pope. The interpretation of the scriptures is not some matter of tremendous difficulty. God gave His word not to be a heresy factory like you seem to think, but to be the light in the darkness (and the God who made man has no difficulty in communicating to him). Psalm 119:105, "Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path."

>How do you know you particular choice of interpretation is the right one

By reference to the scriptures.

>That’s the fatal flaw of Protestantism. Finding the “true” denom is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Oops you picked the wrong you’re outta luck.

This post is an excellent example of the fact that most papists choose to misunderstand (not that you genuinely don't understand but that you choose not to) our epistemology, our ecclesiology and our soteriology among other things.

>You do

The more you repeat this delusional fantasy the truer it becomes.

>Even if there’s only 2 or 3

<"I was only inflating the numbers by over 1,000%!"

>that’s still much that proves it’s false. Your flock has been scattered.

I can tell you've never even thought to apply this same logic to Rome because if you did your faith wouldn't last a second.

>>845205

>It is quite obvious what he meant

It would take a level of dishonesty and malice that only a protestant is capable of to say that he's saying a unrepentant sinner shouldn't be judged.

>Through His word which was given to mankind once for all for the guidance of the Church, the edification of the saints, and the conversion of the unbelieving.

Yes and God's word's has been interpreted several times by different denoms. I don't believe a false interpretation of those words carry any authority. Apparently you don't agree.

>Once I was speaking to a homophile, I quoted to her the verbatim words of Leviticus 20:13 to demonstrate that God did not approve of homosexual behavior. Her response was "that's just your interpretation". That's you right now. You're making a homophile argument because you likewise do not wish to submit to God.

Nice deflection. Again this is something you're apparently not getting. There can only be one interpretation, only one truth. This little story you just told applies to every single protestant. They can't even agree on whether infant baptism is biblical or not. You ever see a Baptist and methodist debating over it? It always comes down to "well that's just your interpretation.

https://invidiou.site/VXSPKjypoO8

>You are not to interpret any word of scripture on the basis of what men say about it

That's what protestants do constantly

>What you don't understand is we do not grant to any man the authority to determine the meaning of scripture

Then why does each denom have a different interpretation?

>unlike you for whom scripture is a dead letter

Oh look a protestant lying.

>who hangs instead on every word of the pope.

Funny, that's what protestants do. Look what Francis said in this latest interview! Check mate Catholics. The Pope exercises full teaching authority in a very limited and rare capacity. Something Francis hasn't even done yet. He doesn't even issue encyclicals all that much. This idea that every word the Pope utters is to be believed as dogmatic is a protestant meme.

>The interpretation of the scriptures is not some matter of tremendous difficulty.

The various protestant sects can't even agree on the proper form of baptism… Some protestants believe in the priesthood and some don't. This is a joke they can't even agree on the simplest of doctrines. It's obviously a difficult task for them.

>God gave His word not to be a heresy factory like you seem to think

No, but that's what protestants have turned it into. Again you all disagree on the simplest doctrines. Only ONE of you can be right. The rest must therefore be heresy.

>but to be the light in the darkness

And which of the various denoms holds the light?

>(and the God who made man has no difficulty in communicating to him)

Which protestant denom did God properly communicate it too? Cause they can't all be correct.

>By reference to the scriptures.

False. You don't go by reference you go by preference and you pick which one you like best. Many protestants who profess sola scriptura reference the scripture and end up with different interpretations.So how do you know which is right?

>This post is an excellent example of the fact that most papists choose to misunderstand (not that you genuinely don't understand but that you choose not to) our epistemology, our ecclesiology and our soteriology among other things.

I'm not misunderstanding it unless the proper understanding is that salvation is equally available in all protestant denoms. I hope that's not what you're saying.

This is always funny (and hypocritical) coming from a protestant especially when they act like every word a Pope says is infallible and demand that Catholics answer for some off the cuff interview the Pope gave when that was never how Catholics viewed the Popes teaching authority. Whoops Francis just sneezed guess that sneeze was infallible!

>The more you repeat this delusional fantasy the truer it becomes.

Cope.

https://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/appendix-b-classification-of-protestant-denominations/

Did you know the protestants are so fractured that some even schismed along racial along racial lines?

><"I was only inflating the numbers by over 1,000%!"

You have literally thousands of denoms but just 2 is too much. Just 2 is enough to prove your flock is scattered.

>I can tell you've never even thought to apply this same logic to Rome because if you did your faith wouldn't last a second.

There's only one Roman Catholic Church with one Roman Pontiff.

Sure, a lot of different churches, including yours, schismed off it but only the Roman Catholic Church remains the Roman Catholic Church. Protip: The ones who initiate the schism are the ones who left the flock.

>>845197

>Well, it is the Methodists. And old school Anglicans. And Erasmian Catholics. And Orthodox.

Ok so 3 Churches and a philosopher that believe different things are all right?

Right off the bat I can tell you that you're wrong cause you clumped in churches that don't believe in the real presence with one that does. Of course the Orthodox are closer to the truth than the other 2 you mentioned. You don't even understand the structure of the Church the same way. Just say "Everyone is right and only the Catholics are wrong" You know you want to.

>All virtually the same adherents to the same ecumenical traditions

Now you're just trolling.

>And all uphold the scriptures equally,

All Christian denoms uphold scripture as the inerrant word of God, yes, including the Catholics, like it or not.

>instead of needlessly bashing it like you.

I didn't bash scripture. I didn't even bash a particular interpretation. All said each denom has a different one.

>It's take a real clown to dismiss the original witness of our faith

Who? John Wesley?

>in order to somehow to defend claims of being the original witness of faith

I can't believe I have to defend Jesus against Wesley…

>>845219

>All Christian denoms uphold scripture as the inerrant word of God, yes, including the Catholics, like it or not.

Not true

The inerrancy of scripture is a hardline position today championed by evangelicals above all else, and dismissed by mainline protestants most of all

>>845221

>>845218

And before you even deny it let's take a look through all the times you asked the question what men should we follow?

It follows that you should rather be providing answers to your questions rather than trolling the rest of us with them by spamming up the thread. Well let's hear your answer as to what men are to be followed rather than the Lord Jesus, the Word of God (that is if you still dare to assert that there's an answer.)

>>845219

>Now you're just trolling.

No. Everyone I listed all acknowledges the 7 ecumenical councils and leans on patristics for their theology (unlike Roman Catholics, who created more councils after the Schism and lean far more on scholastics). They disagree on many minor points, but so did the Church fathers.

Lutherans (or at least some) also acknowledge the 7 councils, but Sola Fide is such a radical line in the sand, so I don't include them.

>Who? John Wesley?

Wesley didn't go against the scriptures. At least not consciously. I was talking about your own statement. You sound like a Roman Catholic. If not that, it's something similar. It's the typical line of "dismissing the scriptures in order to own the Protestants. Your only argument is to attack the scriptures, in order to hold up your Vatican authority. For this, I call you a clown. You would hold the Pope over the Apostles. This is precisely why the rest of the board revolts against you people: >>845194

>How does God exercise His authority? Through the Protestant’s interpretation of the Bible? Surely not. If so which one? There’s multiple denominations each with it’s own of interpretation. How do you know you particular choice of interpretation is the right one and not the one or the other several thousand of the other denominations? What if you’re wrong and the Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians or something is the right one? That’s the fatal flaw of Protestantism. Finding the “true” denom is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Oops you picked the wrong you’re outta luck.

>>845225

You realize all of the state churches were not only pro violent suppression of the scriptures but also gradually became idolatrous regimes right? I would much rather be on the side of the Lord in obeying his commands and preserving the scriptures than in some political alliance that conspires to burn the scriptures… Even if it means you get some army of thugs to questionably back you up, that doesn't hold a candle to the legions of God. Why would one put faith in man and his armies, just as they trusted in the chariots of Egypt, instead of just believing our Lord God and his true scriptures? I don't understand, why would one do that, friend?

>>845218

I'm sorry anon, I would have liked to reply, but you are just too dumb and too dishonest even for me to deal with. I will not cast my pearls before you.

I know a fool like you's first inclination will be to declare "victory" in response to this, but remember that is just a cope, and you know deep down just how true what I just said is.

I will pray for your salvation.

I'm starting to hate Catholics. I asked r/catholicism for an exorcism prayer for pets and they just bullied me.

>>845261

>exorcism prayer for pets

what is that supposed to be?

>>845266

Gee I don't know. What the winnie the pooh could that be?

>>845261

I just saw the post, and I would recommend having it blessed or bathe it in holy water. Seriously.

t. anon who owned two of the most wretched rabbits on earth. Of all the pets of my childhood, hazel and cloud (their names, yes) were the NASTIEST things we ever had. in our house. Although they WERE only meant. Or you could try having it blessed by a priest you can do that.

>>845270

* whose family owned the two most wretched rabbits.

>>845253

He is right though,. Protestantism simply is not true, if it were true, there should only be ONE, I repeat ONE, Church. Not two, not eighteen, not thousands. ONE. But BECAUSE it is so over the place it cannot be true. AND NO, we DO NOT hang on the popes every word. He is only to be listened to when speaking ex cathedra. Even a cursory understanding of the faith reveals this. I am only more convinced that Protestants are the real hypocrites

>>845276

Presupposition

>>845280

It is not. It is basic common sense. It can be best described as my garage. There is EITHER A CAR…OR THEIR IS NOT. IT IS EITHER TRUE OR IT IS FALSE.

>>845276

Just give it up. You're not going to convince anyone to follow you here. Too many Protestants were killed by Catholics, for the worst reasons (translating the scriptures especially, like in Tyndale's case). There will always be bad blood. It's a narrative that's never truly going to be undone.

It's a surprise that there's even camaraderie with Orthodox too. I think they suffered even worse under Catholic swords. Your soldiers pillaged Constantinople and mockingly put a whore on the Patriarch's seat, in jest. Even the first Orthodox martyr on this American soil was killed by insane Catholic priests. Not merely soldiers, but priests. Peter the Aleut. All he did was want to go hunting down south, and your priests tortured him, demanded he convert to Catholicism, then cut off each toe and finger, then his hands, then disemboweled him. You people are sick. You care about nothing but power.

>>845283

>You care about nothing but power.

And when you're powerless guess who you're going to come crying to. Neither the Orthodox nor the Protestants deserve hatred, but when you shun worldly power demons triumph. The worldly isn't a storybook. The only plot armor you get is the armor you forge for yourself.

>>845282

The idea that there is only one true institutional church is the presupposition

>>845276

From 1325 to at least 1612 the pope claimed to be god. I worship the true God alone, not idols or other fallible men that aren't the Lord Jesus.

There is one truth in this world, only one truth that all churches must follow. We all must hear Christ's word and follow this, and those that do not keep His Word are not known by Him.

And it's ludicrous to suggest that there is only one congregation in the whole world. That would be denying every other church that exists throughout all cities that follows the truth. Are you saying every Christian needs to move to one place where the one supposed church is? How is it impossible that churches in different cities can't believe the same truth?

>>845276

Remember what I said about not understanding our ecclesiology?

>>845295

Your "ecclesioology" is all over the place. If it were true it woulds be united in one>>845218 right. Protestantism is fallacious and laughable. I have concluded that if any group were to be true Church, it would be the one closest to the early Christians. And that church…. is the Catholic Church. Protestantism has FAR TOO LITTLE in common to be valid. The closest would be orthodox. The early Christians believed in venerating Mary. They believed in the real presence they believed in the primacy of Rome. They believed in purgatory. Protestantism CLEARLY CANNOT be the truth by that fact as it is so different as to be only superficial.

>>845287

Agree, anon. Protestantism is clearly cancer and the devils greatest trick. I am glad I dodged that bullet.

>>845290

Source on the first part? Would you post a link?

>>845304

Answer my question first and I'll gladly answer yours. It shouldn't be hard to answer. Otherwise I'll just take it that you really think everyone in the world should move to one place and get into a super-gathering of however many millions of people at one place.

>>845358

Well I guess that ends that conversation. The source for everyone else is:

Text-book of Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 3, p. 66, footnote 3.

>– Zenzelinus, A.D. 1325, in his gloss to Extravag. Jo. XXII. Tit. XIV. C. 4, in fine says: Credere autem Dominum Deum nostrum Papam, conditorem dictae decretalis, sic non potuisse statuere, prout statuit, haereticum censeretur. So also in the Lyons editions of 1584 and 1606, and in the Paris editions of 1585, 1601 and 1612: in the later editions the Deum is left out.

The rough translation of this is: "But to believe that our Lord God the Pope, the establisher of said decretal, and of this, could not decree, as he did decree, should be accounted heretical."

The explanation for this is given as follows (on the same page earlier in the footnote):

>Augustini Triumphi, Qu. IX. Art. 1. Utrum Papae debeatur honor, qui debetur Christo secundum quod Deus? Videtur: – quia honor debetur potestati, sed una est potestas Christi secundum quod Deus et Papae: quod probatur, quia potestas Christi secundum quod Deus est peccata dimittere juxta illud Marc ii. quos potest peccata dimittere nisi solus Deus? istud autem convenit Papae, quia quodcumque ligat vel solvit super terram, est ligatum vel solutum in caelis.

The rough translation of this is:

"Question IX, Whether the Pope deserves the same honor, as that is due to Christ as God? It appears: that honor is rendered for power, but identical is the power of Christ according to both God and the Pope; this is proved, that the power of Christ as God to forgive sins is according to Mark ii, who can forgive sins but God only? This is likewise true of the Pope, that whatsoever you shall bind or loose on earth shall be bound or loosed in heaven."

And this was the explanation they used for arguing he was god. It was also argued by Aquinas he was allowed to nullify any oath made to God because of this.

>>845436

Also it's not like I expect this fact is going to change any one of your mind from what it already is, only the word of God found in the Bible can do that. It's one of the reasons why, as I originally brought up, we must worship God alone, not idols, or bread and crackers.

Matthew 4:10

Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Amen.

>>845358

>>845358

http://www.geoffhorton.com/PapalClaims.html

>>845444

Why not just answer the question?

.

>>838753

>When are we going to admit that it is the protestants and the EOs on this board who are in friendly alliance opposed to the catholic posters?

Is that a bad thing that the heretics are fulfilling biblical teaching that the true followers of Christ will be persecuted by the faithless?

Protestantism is a Germanic invention, and like all Germanic machinations, its primary purpose is to destroy Europe

>>852034

kek, saved.

https://youtu.be/kfaSFcxMS70

>>852034

The delusion here is palpable

>>845302

>Sola Scripture

>Ambrose: "Yes, No"

>Athanasius: "Yes, No"

>Cyril of Jerusalem: "Yes, No"

Matt Slick doesn't sound like a very sharp fellow.

>>845302

>Apocrypha

>No

What? Every single Church Father and every Christian until Martin Luther accepted the 'Apocrypha'.

>>853011

>The only things that can be argued as a change would be the condemnation of Donatism

You don't understand the pseudohistorical lunacy baptistanon is swimming in, to get it.

So condemning donatism means condemning rebaptism(because donatists didn't recognise imperial sacraments), which ACTUALLY means the donatists were full of credobaptist baptists(which later spread up north, and did all kinds of woo with Bible manuscripts), which means the pre-Arles Church was actually a IFB confederation, and Constantine came along with Arles and took over with his bought bishops that agreed to Arles and formed a new pseudo-church.

>>853011

>The only things that can be argued as a change would be the condemnation of Donatism, and the enforcement of military service.

The fact is, he is the one who decided who was going to be inside the exclusive priesthood of his church, and who was going to be outside of it, which in reality was nothing except a state church. And if you didn't side with Constantine on any point, you were considered out.

The interesting thing is, not much later, Constantine literally promoted Arius himself to the head preaching position of Rome. So much for the supposed 'primacy' of a single location… Which is found nowhere in Scripture by the way. How do you even explain the Arians? How do you even differentiate yourselves from that cult, and prove that you are different than them, considering the same emperor started you both?

Of course, anyone consistently and unapologetically siding with the doctrine of Christ would be accused by these same people of merely being in a rival sect, hence, called Donatist or Rogatist, etc. The underlying fallacy here, is that you assume everything the chosen side of the cult says - such as that they all followed Donatus as some kind of rival papal figure, is correct, except where it isn't correct but then you just ignore it. So, they can keep on coming up with more names that act like disinformation. That's the problem.

Fortunately, we always have the Bible to light the way for us.

>There's no evidence that this ever happened.

He was promoted to the head of the Roman Catholic church in 335 AD at the synod of Tyre by Constantine, who is even the same person who started the faction to start out with in 313 AD.

>When Constantine supposedly founded a new church in 313:

>- He never appointed any new bishops or church officials. The church ran the same way it was run before.

He explicitly chose one side of a debate and told it it was the legitimate side. From 313 to 321 AD, Constantine had property taken from the dissenting side and given to his chosen faction. Whether they were right or wrong doctrinally did not factor into this, only whether they sided with Constantine politically or whether they dissented from him running absolutely everything. The pope did not exist at that time. Later, the bishop of Rome started out as a vassal to the Emperors during the Arian and Lombard eras, and he vassalized himself to the Franks after this. But I will say it was a slow process of accruing all these false ideas over time with some key dates being 606 when emperor Phocas declared the Roman bishop as universal over the Constantinople one, the switch to being vassalized by the Franks in 756, theintervention of pseudo-episcopus Nicolaus in annulling Lothair II 's synods at Aachen and Metz (862/863) in the year 867, the creation of the papal college in 1059, the declaration of the title of pope in 1073, the defeat of the emperor in the investiture controversy at Worms in 1122- and lastly, the era of crusades and inquisitions, and physically persecuting independent churches starting with the first major blow at the sack of Béziers in 1209. These are all fairly well documented events in time, and they show a progression.

>>853011

>but from what I know, the British Christians supported Augustine of Cantebury when he arrived there.

No they didn't actually. After they broke off from communication with him, he made a little prophecy that they would be attacked by the pagan Anglian tribe in the north, which took place not long after. But it is hard to say whether he actually had a direct hand in orchestrating that or whether he was already passed away at that point.

>- He never intoroduced any new practices into worship.

By comparison to what? Do you have the pre- and post-Constantine rites available?

>- He didn't change the Bible in any way.

I should say there is good circumstantial evidence Constantius II, his heir, was responsible for removing 1 John 5:7 from many Greek copies of his time. Johann Gerhard mentions this and attributes this deletion to the Arians in Loci Theologici, vol. 1, ch. 16, p. 152, as does the theologian Johann Heidegger in Corpus theologiae Christianae, vol. 1, ch. 4, p. 118. Just interesting that I think that's a pretty likely (but not mandatory) explanation of how that happened.

>- He didn't introduce any new doctrines or teachings.

What about the one where if you go against his will, he will confiscate your church property and donate it to his selected faction? That is a pretty firm teaching. You realize there was a whole time of persecution like this that lasted from 313 to 321 when he decided to make "peace" due to other concerns going on. But there was a second wave of persecutions and killings of Christians by the legate Macarius, who was sent again by the Emperor of Rome to their churches in 346 to 348 AD. This is where the battle of Bagai took place. The emperor was trying to purge the dissenting churches but it only resulted in greater fervor against it.

Augustine of Hippo even argued that what Constantine did was righteous warfare, so it's obvious that it did happen, as he even discusses this. He writes in letter 93 to Vincentius, par. 14, this: "an outcry is raised that this is an unworthy wrong, and it is maintained that no one ought to be coerced to unity, and that evil should not be requited to evil to any one … And in view of these things, it was not a great or difficult thing for you to reflect and discover how the decree and sentence of Constantine, […] should be in force against you."

So how's that for a new teaching?

Later, Honorius made a law against rebaptisms in 413 AD. Later still, Justinian specifically revived that law in his consolidated code of laws, the Codex Justinianus.

All in line with that same mode of thought; All in that same vein. Coerce people into unity, do not even allow them to be separate and be voluntarily set apart for God, and also requiting evil for evil. Throw into prison people who want to be a called apart assembly, and do inquisitions on them.

>>853035

I take this directly from the Flores Historiarum, one of the earliest versions of this account. It is generally believed to be accurate.

>A.D. 603. Ethelfrid, king of the Northumbrians, fighting against the Britons at Caerleon, slew a great number of religious men belonging to the abbey of Bangor.

>At this time the man of God, Augustine, availing himself of the authority and assistance of king Ethelbert, summoned to his synod the bishops and doctors of the nearest province of Britain to the place which, in the language of the Angles, is called to this day Augustines-ac, that is to say, the Oak of Augustine, on the borders of the West Saxons and the Wiccii, and began to persuade them with fraternal admonitions to hold the catholic faith with him, and to unite with him in undertaking the joint labour of preaching the gospel to the nations for the sake of the Lord ; as hitherto they had celebrated the sacred feast of Easter and done many other things in a manner contrary to the unity of the church. And after a long discussion, when they would not assent to either the prayers or exhortations of Augustine, he said, "Brethren, let us pray to Almighty God that he will vouchsafe, by his heavenly tokens, to declare to us, which tradition is to be followed, and which is the true way to his heavenly kingdom. Let some sick man be brought, and let all belief be placed in, and all authority given to, that party by whose prayers he is cured." And when his adversaries, though against their will, had agreed, a sick man was brought in, deprived of his eyesight. And when he had been submitted to the bishops of the Britons, but had derived no advantage from their ministry, at length Augustine bent his knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, entreating him to restore sight to the blind, in order that, by the bodily illumination of one man, God might kindle the grace of spiritual light in the heart of many believers. And immediately the blind man received his sight, and Augustine was proclaimed by every one as the true messenger of the highest right. Then the Britons confessed they understood then that that was the true way which Augustine preached, but still they said that they could not, without the consent of their chiefs, forsake their ancient customs, so that they begged that another synod might be held, consisting of more members. And when that had been decided on, there came, as it is related, seven bishops and many most learned men of the Britons, especially from their most noble monastery, which, in the language of the Angles, is called Bangorneburg, over which, at that time, Dionotus is said to have presided as abbot. And they, when on their way to the before-mentioned council, came first to a holy and prudent man, who had led the life of a hermit among them, and consulted him whether they ought to desert their own traditions at the preaching of Augustine. And he answered them, "If he be a man of God, follow him." They said, "And how can we prove this?" He said to them, "The Lord has said, 'Learn of me, because I am meek and lowly of heart.' If, therefore, that Augustine is meek and lowly of heart, it is credible that he himself both bears Christ's yoke himself, and offers the same to you to take upon you. But if he be stern and haughty, then it is plain that he is not of God, nor are you to regard his words." They replied again, "And how are we to discern this?" "Contrive," said the hermit, "that he shall first arrive with his friends at the place of council, and then if he, of his own accord, rises up when you approach, you may know that he is a servant of Christ, and obediently listen to him. But if he disdains you, and will not rise up to you, though you are more in number, then he, likewise, may be disdained by you." It therefore so happened, that when they arrived, Augustine was sitting in his chair. And they, on seeing this, presently fell into a passion, and considering him full of pride, set themselves to contradict every thing he said. And Augustine said to them, "If you are willing to comply with me in three things only, namely, so as to celebrate Easter at its proper time, to fulfil the ministry of baptism, by which we are regenerated to God, according to the customs of the Roman Church, and to preach the word of God to the nation of the Angles in union with us, we will patiently tolerate your other customs, though contrary to ours."

(cont'd)

>But they declared that they would do none of these things, and that they would not consider him as archbishop, arguing with one another, "If he would not rise up to us, how much more will he slight us, if we once become subject to him?" And the man of God, Augustine, is related to have said to them, "If they would not have peace with their brethren, would they accept war from their enemies? And if they were unwilling to preach the way of life to the nation of the Angles, he told them they would endure the revenge of death at their hands." And all this came to pass in every respect as he had foretold, through the working of God's vengeance. And not long afterwards, Ethelfrid, king of Northumberland, a man of great courage and a most ferocious pagan, having collected a great army in the city of Legions, which is called by the Britons Caerleon, and which was called the city of the Legions, because the Roman Legions used to be stationed there, made a great slaughter of them. For being about to engage in battle with the Britons, when he saw that their priests, who had come together to address their prayers to God on behalf of the soldiers who were occupied in war, were stationed in a safe place, he asked who they were, or what they were going to do there. For there were a great many of them from the monastery of Bangor, which is said to have contained such a number of monks that they were divided into seven classes with seven rectors, and no division contained fewer than three hundred religious brethren. And the greater part of them having kept a fast for three days, met together with other priests also for the sake of praying to God, having Brochimallus for their defender, to protect them from the swords of the barbarians while they themselves were engaged in praying. And when the tyrant Ethelfrid had learnt the object of their presence, he said, "And if these men invoke the aid of their God against us, then, they are fighting against us, although they do not bear arms, for they assail us with their prayers." Therefore he directed the attack to be made on them first, and then destroyed the rest of that wicked army, not without great loss to his own forces. In that battle it is said that of these men who had come to pray, there were about twelve hundred men slain, and that only fifty escaped by flight. Brochimallus fled also with his men at the first onset of the enemy, and left those whom he ought to have defended, unarmed and exposed to the swords of their slayers. And thus the prophecy of the blessed pontiff Augustine was fulfilled.

>>838753

Within a couple weeks of being on this board I have ascertained two possible facts regarding the Catholic posters on here:

1. It is impossible to argue theology with reason to a Catholic because they abide by none, merely reciting endless statutes of their doctrine no matter how they may contradict one another.

2. There are no Catholic posters on here, they're all trolls.

>>853101

>How is 'treason is illegal' a new doctrine?

You see Augustine there trying to justify it. He's making all these theological arguments on why we have to side with him whatever he says. Just read letter 93 to Vincentius yourself.

We can't escape history simply by taking an easy way out and automatically believing everything that the pro-Constantine faction taught and said. He threw people out of his congregation because they did not politically align with his philosophy, a philosophy which turned out to be sympathetic to arianism, no less. There remains the true fact that they, those sectarians who sided with him were wrong, as we see here, that they never managed to prevail against the church. History has proven the victor and stood the test of time. That is why we still have the same pure received word from then as now.

I am anti-treason by the way.

>>852054

St. Jerome

>>838753

I’m not EO but I tend to like them in person and most of their posts on here are reasonable and agreeable, I’d probably join them if there was an Orthodox church near me. I get sick of the catholics here though, and on most of the internet in a broader sense. They have really bad attitudes and are generally extremely rude, even to other catholics. I don’t remember them existing 10 years ago, I think they sprung up with the rise of internet white nationalism because the alt right thinks the pope is gonna save white people or something. We need to have a /catholic/ board so the actual Christians can have discussions here without these retards s—ting up the threads.

>>853298

> I get sick of the catholics here though, and on most of the internet in a broader sense

the internet tends to filter out the worst people from each demographic.

>>853321

This is probably a correct analysis

>>853326

>>853321

You can rejoice that you two are the two pure souls on the internet from the Protestant demographics.

And rest assured, that your annoyance with Catholics is true and not cognitive dissonance and the lack of charity for your neighbor.

>inb4 baptist don't believe in love for the enemies of God!

I don't recall seeing that exception in the Gospels. Please tell us who Jesus, who forgave those who crucified him, say which enemies was okay to hate?

>>853329

>hate

I see you wave a rainbow flag in the fag parade

>>853343

Hes right though, not only are we commanded to love our enemies, we are not suppose to be angry which sounds dangerous.

>Matthew 5:21 You have heard that it was said to the ancients, ‘Do not murder’c and ‘Anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brotherd will be subject to judgment.

>>853344

Romanists are not our brothers.

>853347

And a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” And He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” And he answered, “Y ou shall love the Lord your G od with all your heart , and with all your soul , and with all your strength , and with all your mind ; and your neighbor as yourself .” And He said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this and you will live .” But wishing to justify himself, he said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus replied and said, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, and they stripped him and beat him, and went away leaving him half dead. And by chance a priest was going down on that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. Likewise a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion, and came to him and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn and took care of him. On the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I return I will repay you.’ Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers’ hands? ” And he said, “The one who showed mercy toward him.” Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do the same.”

Luke 10:25‭-‬37 NASB1995

>>853343

Sodomy is a mortal sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.

False witness is also a mortal sin, and I wave no flags at a sodomite pride parade.

>>853344

True, but the church limits anger to a murderous desire where you want to see your enemy dead. Anger is more of a sin of the absence of charity as there is no love of neighbor there, usually. For example, I love my daughter but she can sometimes make me angry with her willful misbehavior. Still love her tho.

Anon's case is a complete lack of the charity.

>>853347

Cain at least admitted Able was his brother.

>>853329

James 4:4 says, "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God."

Meanwhile 2 Corinthians written by Paul says, "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,"

If you want to call that hate you can I guess. But it is not going against the will of the Father, because the Lord and our God also sanctions it. As the book of Revelation says, "But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate."

>>853344

Matthew 5:22 says, "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:"

See where it says, "without a cause." There is cause for righteous anger at times. The Lord Jesus has had righteous anger. He would not condemn himself. We hear of the wrath of God in numerous places. As it says, "the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost," and also, "Jesus has delivered us from the wrath to come." As it says in Ephesians 4:26, "Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath" And also Psalm 37 which says, "Cease from anger, and forsake wrath: fret not thyself in any wise to do evil."

Voin turvallisesti myöntää, että minulla on kaksisuuntainen mielialahäiriö. Kun olen masennusvaiheessa, en halua elää. Minulla on huono tunnelma ja ruokahalu. Onneksi löysin lääkkeen https://online-apteekki.com/geneerinen-risperdal/, joka auttaa minua selviytymään stressistä ja palaamaan normaaliin elämään.