/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>260284

Okay why should I accept the Eastern church(es)?

sage

Also the Roman church has a neat compendium of their beliefs (vatican.va, etc), do the EO churches have something similar?

>>260293

> If you read the Church Fathers (which any person who calls themselves Christian should), you'll clearly see that the faith of early Christianity is much more similar to Orthodoxy than it is to Romanism, and exceedingly more similar than Protestantism.

I find the church fathers to be very biblical/Protestant.

They had no idea of the Roman Marian dogmas, justification by works and faith, and papal infallibility/Roman supremacy.

>>260293

My issue with Easternism is justification by works and faith (theosis), the tradition, veneration of icons as the main issues.

What's the view of the church in EO-y, do the bishops speak infallibly ``ex-cathedra``?

>>260300

I should also say,

>biblical/Protestant

>implying

>>260301

Your ignorance isn't argument

>>260300

> I don't know how you got that idea. Have you read Ss. Justin Martyr or Ignatius?

Have you read Tertullian, Augustine, Clement?

I kind of understand why Evangelicals go to Moscow instead of Rome.

The biggest issue of course is your soteriology is just a mess. This entire theosis thing only arised because of the Desert fathers. EO-y was influenced by the Eastern train of thought is more mystic while justification in Romanism (and subsequently Protestantism) is more forensic, due to the Western train of thought which is more logical and systematic.

>>260287

AroundCatholicsBewareOfTricks.jpg

why sage? it's a legit Q/A thread

>>260305

Because he is content with whatever strawman of Christianity he has in mind. Doesn't bother him.

>>260293

>If you read the Church Fathers

Also the Patristics had varying thoughts, there wasn't a consensus on everything.

>>260308

Actually, the Fathers did have a consensus. It's pretty much one of the main things we go on.

https://oca.org/reflections/fr.-lawrence-farley/the-consensus-of-the-fathers

>>260309

> Assuming you mean "of Rome," what do you reckon is Protestant about him? If you mean "of Alexandria," then he's a literal heretic.

In his letter to the Corinthians he talks about plurality of bishops in Rome. Not a single bishop who presides over others but multiple. A presbytery. Much like how the NT sets it out.

>>260300

>True, these are garbage ideas foreign to ancient Christianity.

pfffaaaahahahaha

>>260318

Any evidence they were the majority belief back then

I'll bookmark this thread and I hope to dialogue with you all soon

>>260318

Good meme. I like it.

>>260320

Rock, Church etc etc.

In the end there is always a final authority

. Trying to say "well, there is not one people, there are SEVERAL" is completely meaningless.

You can find a list of popes anywhere. The bishop of Rome has always been given authority

>>260326

You get the exact same you give

>>260309

> And sola fide only arose because of Martin Luther. What's your point?

''Jaroslav Pelikan wrote:

"Every major tenet of the Reformation had considerable support in the catholic tradition. That was eminently true of the central Reformation teaching of justification by faith alone….That the ground of our salvation is the unearned favor of God in Christ, and that all we need do to obtain it is to trust that favor – this was the confession of great catholic saints and teachers….Rome’s reactions [to the Protestant reformers] were the doctrinal decrees of the Council of Trent and the Roman Catechism based upon those decrees. In these decrees, the Council of Trent selected and elevated to official status the notion of justification by faith plus works, which was only one of the doctrines of justification in the medieval theologians and ancient fathers. When the reformers attacked this notion in the name of the doctrine of justification by faith alone – a doctrine also attested to by some medieval theologians and ancient fathers – Rome reacted by canonizing one trend in preference to all the others. What had previously been permitted also (justification by faith alone), now became forbidden. In condemning the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent condemned part of its own catholic tradition.” (RRC, 49, 51-52)``

``Clement of Rome``

``"And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. What shall we do, then, brethren? Shall we become slothful in well-doing, and cease from the practice of love? God forbid that any such course should be followed by us! But rather let us hasten with all energy and readiness of mind to perform every good work." (First Clement, 32-33)''

>>260329

> Rock, Church etc etc.

Go be lazy somewhere else.

> You can find a list of popes anywhere. The bishop of Rome has always been given authority

Read Tertullian

>>260330

Excuse me I have been deleting some posts so I can reformat them using the italics and whatnot. It's so annoying. I have given up.

>>260331

I'm not lazy. I just state something you want to ignore.

The lazy person is the one who believes in a monstrosity created through the removal of tradition and authority. The lazy person is the one who decides to just give authority to himself and follow his own religion.

>>260324

> If it's not too much trouble, can you give me which chapter he says that in? It's been a while since I read 1 Clement, but I can't recall anything like that.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-lightfoot.html

Go down to 1 Clement 32:4

>>260333

My authority is scripture. You are going to have to substantiate your claims if you want me to respond and elaborate more.

>>260335

What scripture? Is Harry Potter Scripture? Why? Why not? Who determines what is scripture and what isn't? And who interprets it? If scripture is authority, why are there 28347238 denominations for the same scripture?

>>260336

I am not sure if I should take you seriously. The claims you make aren't even used by serious Roman apologists. Your homework assignment for tonight, go into the Protestant perspective and refute those claims.

Terms to help you with your search

1. The canonicity of scripture

2. Perspicuity of scripture

3. Denominations in Christianity

>>260337

Roman apologists? They aren't scripture. And as you said, scripture is your authority.

I an waiting for your answers. No matter how you try to twist it, without the Church, your ultimate authority is yourself, which is why there are a million protestant denominations, because they all give authority to themselves.

>>260325

>>260330

>Jaroslav Pelikan

I'm seeing a lot of spicy, spicy implications, but not many references. In any case, it's not at all unheard of to reject the teachings of some Fathers in favor of others. St. Gregory of Nyssa, for example, taught universal reconciliation.

>Clement of Rome

I wouldn't say this is much of an argument for sola fide. It's more arguing against the idea that we can be justified apart from faith.

>>260337

'Fraid I'm gonna have to agree with that guy. There's no reason to believe that God would preserve the Bible but not preserve the Church that He established, and which assembled the Bible.

>>260339

I have errands to run but since you ask and I only because YOU asked I am going to answer those claims since you were polite and sincere in your discussion with me.

>>260336

> What scripture

Scripture is God-inspired text (2 Timothy 3:15-17). Something that people write under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

How do we know that the Bible is truly the word of God?

1 Thessalonians 2:13 "For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe."

> Who determines what is scripture and what isn't?

Who determined it? The early church. But this isn't an argument for Romanism. Since the modern church of Rome only usurped power over all the churches and corrupted its teachings in the medieval ages.

> And who interprets it?

People. Councils are great. But even after that people interpret the councils differently. So you add another level of abstraction.

> If scripture is authority, why are there 28347238 denominations for the same scripture?

Is there? Proof?

The major Protestant groups;

Lutheran

Reformed/Calvinist

Presbyterian

Episcopalian/Anglican

Methodist

Baptist

Pentecostals/Charismatics

Seven day Adventists

Not many if you are honest.

Also are you saying that there has never been disagreement with the church fathers or in Rome?

Almost all denominations recognize the 5 solaes. The differences like in minor issues. Tertiary issues at best.

On authority, justification and sacraments we agree.

>>260342

>Scripture is God-inspired text (2 Timothy 3:15-17). Something that people write under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

You haven't answered me. You have given a description of a collection of documents, but you haven't said what documents are part of that collection and why

>1 Thessalonians 2:13 "For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe."

Again the same. What documents are the word of God and which aren't?

>The early church

So you contradict yourself, since you said that scripture is your authority.

> Since the modern church of Rome only usurped power over all the churches and corrupted its teachings in the medieval ages.

There are no modern and early churches, that is an arbitrary distinction you make. If you want to see power please, take a look at megachurches and protestant denominations.

Everyone has some power, that is irrelevant.

The claim about corrupted teachings is laughable. Orthodox also have almost the same dogma. Again, if you want to look at corruption, look at protestant denominations.

>People. Councils are great. But even after that people interpret the councils differently. So you add another level of abstraction.

People contradict each other. Every protestant denomination has reunions. Everyone can make a 2council". Your "level of abstraction" means "since nobody has authority, everyone just believes whatever fits them".

>

The major Protestant groups;

Lutheran

Reformed/Calvinist

Presbyterian

Episcopalian/Anglican

Methodist

Baptist

Pentecostals/Charismatics

Seven day Adventists

Not many if you are honest.

Your distinction between major and non major is arbitrary. They are all the same: groups that deny the authority of the Church to give it to themselves and create their own religion.

>Also are you saying that there has never been disagreement with the church fathers or in Rome?

Almost all denominations recognize the 5 solaes. The differences like in minor issues. Tertiary issues at best.

On authority, justification and sacraments we agree.

Whatever disagreement there is, there is always a final authority. There are not several truths, there is one.

>>260342

>The major Protestant groups;

>Lutheran

>Reformed/Calvinist

>Presbyterian

>Episcopalian/Anglican

>Methodist

>Baptist

>Pentecostals/Charismatics

>Seven day Adventists

These are all plagued by countless internal schisms that in turn are plagued by schisms. It's a curse, once you pop you can't stop.

>>260344

>Whatever disagreement there is, there is always a final authority. There are not several truths, there is one.

Apparently your definition of "truth" is unique, since it is entirely dictated by…who?

Since I already know the proper catholic answer, then I post to you, how can you know that they are indeed the sole voice of truth? By what do you authenticate this belief?

Since I know what your answer should be, I have to say, do you see the problem now? "A determines what is true" "How do you know that?" "Because B says that A will say what is true". "How do you know B is true?" "Because A said so."

>>260349

>These are all plagued by countless internal schisms that in turn are plagued by schisms.

between old Catholics, various schismatic national Catholic churches, and sedevacantists, Rome has its fair share of breakaways, schismatics, and divergent whores to account for too…

>>260352

How can you know that the Bible is true, that it is the word of God? How can you know that Jesus existed? How can you know that Moses heard a voice from a burning bush?

Everything you know, everything you believe is based on "what someone says". The thing is, what they say is the tradition from Christ. From the Church Christ created and gave authority to. There is absolutely no problem. Actually, it's the only possibility.

>>260344

> Again the same. What documents are the word of God and which aren't?

Even if I assume the authority of Rome as valid I can still reject the Bible.

I know the Bible is the word of God because He has woken my eyes up.

> There are no modern and early churches, that is an arbitrary distinction you make. If you want to see power please, take a look at megachurches and protestant denominations.

Then why do you ask the question? It is very important since the idea of a universal physical church isn't present in the Bible.

A universal church of Christ that is immaterial to which all believers belong to is biblical.

> The claim about corrupted teachings is laughable. Orthodox also have almost the same dogma. Again, if you want to look at corruption, look at protestant denominations.

Thank you for giving me all the reason to discontinue any further discussion. Usually people refrain from being this ignorant until later.

Read the first few posts by the Eastern Orthodox poster and tell me EO and RC share a lot in common.

> People contradict each other. Every protestant denomination has reunions. Everyone can make a 2council". Your "level of abstraction" means "since nobody has authority, everyone just believes whatever fits them".

You are missing the point and as your previous posts indicate this is going to be a reoccurring problem with you.

My point was that the idea of a universal church resolving all disputes doesn't solve anything you only move the interpretative challenge one step higher/away from scripture.

> Your distinction between major and non major is arbitrary

> arbitrary

You've found a word you that you wish to use incorrectly.

They are not random, you say this again out of ignorance.

All the aforementioned denominations agree on the true biblical gospel. That we Jesus was born to a virgin as prophesied in the scriptures, and led a sinless life and bore the sins of his people on the cross. Rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. You are justified by faith.

In all these denominations we stress the importance of Christ only, justification by faith, scripture as our only authority and God's grace.

> Whatever disagreement there is, there is always a final authority. There are not several truths, there is one.

Absolutely. Again you are no longer just ignorant you are arrogant. You know have to attempt to study these differences and look into them. But whatever you pick you are saved as long as you don't compromise on the gospel since that saves (feel free to misinterpret this however you want).

>>260349

For the better actually (and the way the God intended for it to be). We are able to split off from the liberals, you absorb them into your church and get people like Pope Francis.

>>260362

And why should I believe Rome has the Bible, why should I believe Jesus was God. Why should believe in the accuracy of the NT in recording the event. Why?

>>260362

Actually we have lots of historical evidence, both empirical but as well as secondary sources, textual criticism, and other academic means to find the Gospels and other books of the Bible to be authentic. Means and methods that you, yourself, can use to determine such things.Granted there is a lot more foot work in this, but it at least gives you knowledge rather than an appeal to authority and an appeal to tradition for your claims.

And no, not everything someone believes is on "what someone says". As I just pointed out above, if that were the case, we would never have any knowledge produced ever (since knowledge, that is, truthful information, comes with an account). You gain this account through qualitative understanding of a topic. Much like math. You don't take someones word for it, you understand why and how. Gather the evidence yourself.

Your second half of the post is just repeating the first assertion again. You haven't resolved your problem of a closed intellectual loop. It's a loop you can't just jump onto because there is no way to authenticate the claim.

In the light of the things I mentioned in the first paragraph, I think I know which of these has a little more…weight behind it.

>>260363

>And why should I believe Rome has the Bible, why should I believe Jesus was God. Why should believe in the accuracy of the NT in recording the event. Why?

This is really simply the beginning and the ending of the problem. If your belief precludes you from being able to have the belief itself, it simply cannot work in a logical way.

>>260363

>Even if I assume the authority of Rome as valid I can still reject the Bible.

First, it's not "Rome", it's the Church. you can't reject the Bible, because the Church compiled the Bible

>Then why do you ask the question? It is very important since the idea of a universal physical church isn't present in the Bible.

The Church is defined by its dogma. There is ONE universal Church, one truth, not local "truths" that change depending on the piece of land you are on. The Church isn't a building. What do you think catholic means?

>Read the first few posts by the Eastern Orthodox poster and tell me EO and RC share a lot in common.

Orthodox try to be special snowflakes, with fancy pictures, but they are just the same, and try to hide that their schism is caused by things like the type of bread that is used. They like to put above each others, they give importance to tradition but they don't know why, that is why their arguments usually consist on trying to name old things, to prove that they are the oldest ones.

But the dogma is almost exactly the same.

>You are missing the point and as your previous posts indicate this is going to be a reoccurring problem with you.

I haven't missed any point.

>My point was that the idea of a universal church resolving all disputes doesn't solve anything you only move the interpretative challenge one step higher/away from scripture.

Regarding dogma and revealed truth, there is one universalt Church. and didn't you say "A universal church of Christ that is immaterial to which all believers belong to is biblical."? Things that don't belong to the dogma, to the revealed Truth, are open to discussion. But anything else isn't.

>You've found a word you that you wish to use incorrectly. They are not random, you say this again out of ignorance.

I don't use it incorrectly. Yo have drawn an artificial line that means nothing

>All the aforementioned denominations agree on the true biblical gospel. That we Jesus was born to a virgin as prophesied in the scriptures, and led a sinless life and bore the sins of his people on the cross. Rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. You are justified by faith.

In all these denominations we stress the importance of Christ only, justification by faith, scripture as our only authority and God's grace.

You are a cultural Christian, which says "well, at leas we agree that…" and then don't care about anything else. What you say is exactly what homosexuals say to ustify themselves.

I will repeat it: all those churches are the personal inventions of idiots who gave themselves authority. Saying that "they still think Jesus is God" means nothing. They all have their own personal additions, all of them sure they have been personally guided by the Holy Spirit and that finally, after thousands of years, they truly get it right.

>But whatever you pick you are saved as long as you don't compromise on the gospel since that saves (feel free to misinterpret this however you want).

The Gospel is not just the basic parts you nitpick to validate whatever heresy you want to defend. The Gospel is the entirety of the teachings of the Church. You don't get to decide what the Gospel is or isn't the same way you don't decide what books are part of the Bible.

>And why should I believe Rome has the Bible, why should I believe Jesus was God. Why should believe in the accuracy of the NT in recording the event. Why?

Because the only options that doesn't lead to a contradiction is the presence of the Church created by Christ that, in an infallible way, transmits the revealed Truth.

>>260366

I can just dismiss those as not enough. Those are just on top of the fact that you need an infallible Church.

Yes, everything you believe is what someone ways, because everything you know about Jesus and about god beyond some simple theological possibility, is revealed Truth that has been brought to you by the Church through the centuries by means of tradition.

Maths are irrelevant here. Math is just a human observation of some things.

Your problem is you think there is a loop. But there isn't, because the beginning of the tradition is God and revealed Truth.

>>260367

Are you Protestant?

>>260368

> First, it's not "Rome", it's the Church. you can't reject the Bible, because the Church compiled the Bible

What I mean is if I say that the Roman church is the "true" church and that they compiled Bible and that apostolic succession (why I don't deny Rome has) means anything I can still reject the Bible as divine.

Because why should I believe Rome to be the true church of God, why believe in Christianity at all?

>>260370

If you accept the Church then you have to accept the teachings and dogma of the Church, which include the divinity of the Bible the Church compiled.

>Because why should I believe Rome to be the true church of God, why believe in Christianity at all?

At this point I'm just showing you that with no Church, Christianity crumbles.

>>260368

>I can just dismiss those as not enough.

I can say the exact same to you.

>Yes, everything you believe is what someone says

This is simply not true, as my other post said.

> is revealed Truth that has been brought to you by the Church through the centuries by means of tradition.

See above

>Maths are irrelevant here. Math is just a human observation of some things.

Oh boy.

You are simply too ignorant to even be able to address what I am saying, correctly. Either you don't have the capacity, or you don't understand the words. I.e. not an english speaker.

>>260381

>I can say the exact same to you.

Yes, but that means nothing. It is your position that creates problems, not mine.

>This is simply not true, as my other post said.

In Christianity it is, since it is based on the tradition from Christ.

>Oh boy.

You are simply too ignorant to even be able to address what I am saying, correctly. Either you don't have the capacity, or you don't understand the words. I.e. not an english speaker.

It's very simple, you are just some pretentious retard who feels intelligent talking about maths, and how those who don't accept that are ignorant peasants who don't have the capacity or can't read.

>>260419

>You cannot be catholic and be schismatic from the See of Rome at the same time per definition.

that's the same kind of bullshit that Protestant subsects talk about though. WELS claims LCMS aren't real Lutherans, but to the outsider who doesn't have some insiders bias on the matter, it's obvious that they're the same fucking thing with only the slightest of variations.

>>260429

>that's the same kind of bullshit that Protestant subsects talk about though.

You follow the See of Rome: You're catholic.

Anything else is not, like, per definition.

Then you're either orthodox or a meme indie sedevacantist church.

As a catholic you can disagree with the current pope and it wouldn't even be the first time that a pope got declared a heretic, but you STILL got to acknowledge the pope.

Yeah yeah, papa Franchesco might not be the cream of the crop at the moment but we can't just say he isn't real.

Instead of pussying out you could better acknowledge, be an example for other catholics and pray for the Church and his pope.

>>260429

Indeed. And as the Catholics pray that all unity may one day be restored, so too should we. Division allows us to be attacked easier.

Sadly there is a big problem among the Protestants. We are taught the Anti-Christ will likely be a Pope who will lead the church astray. Which made more sense when the Doges ruled the church and the Medicci were being evil and had a literal army. Now it stands in the way of reunification.

The important thing is we all agree Christ is our King, the Bible is the word of God, and we must spread the gospel to all the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L14UNjaZJm8

>>260419

Your entire post reeks of ignorance, top that off with the anime pic and the fact Romanists have overused the word heresy this is a shitpost.

>>260422

Not really. I just don't want the same old weak arguments. It obvious you never did any serious research.

>>260383

You fail to address the other points made and can't move a discussion forward

>>260373.

Yet you have over a billion Christians. The church was meant to exist just not in an universal sense.

>>260442

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bynoSQmyAss

Watch the debate Dimond does with Keith Thompson on justification

Dimond lies about the word diakiosune

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQmPLJqJcGE

Also see the refutation of that film

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSzJgUPjQSs

>>260441

Drop Mere Christianity and actually read the Bible.

Galatians 1:8. You obviously don't understand the gospel, we Protestants can't claim belligerence with Rome. They have a false gospel. I don't hate Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox. I love them as much as I love Muslims and Buddhists. They are all misled.

>>260449

>You fail to address the other points made and can't move a discussion forward

There are no other points. I have addressed everything you ahve said, while you haven't addressed anything I have said. Everything you say is based on your arbitrary distinction of "early and modern church", something you made up to justify just doing whatever you want.

You don't know what the Church is. You think the Church is a building. You are a heretic who thinks there are several local "truths", several dogmas.

You are exactly like muslims, who talk about their imaginary corruption of the Bible. And like Jehova witnesses. And in general, like any other who wants to create his own fanfiction religion, trying to dismiss everything as "corrupted".

>>260501

You even expected some other outcome than FUBAR when protties are involved?

>>260614

He seemed pretty reasonable when it was just me and him. I thought he might be an honest inquirer, but now looking at his posts elsewhere, he really was just trying to stir shit.

>>260620

If you want reasonable discussions from protties you can hope for it with lutherans and anglicans maybe, but other than that it's all useless.

>>260639

I'm starting to think that. It's all latria scriptura and sola gnosis with these guys.

>>260640

>>260639

>>260620

>>260614

How did it go FUBAR?

Is this what you say when you run out replies? Maybe just maybe you are wrong. But this is the end of the line for the LARPer.

Tbh you Orthodox poster were cool, just the Papist was insane.

>>260639

Like your previous post was just stupid. Like it literally hurts to see people this dumb. Have you never look up any responses Protestants have given. Have you read a commentary on James? Do you ever think the way you go about debate isn't welcoming?

You are like atheist who thinks that Constantine made up Christianity but never investigates the matter further.