ITT we post scholarly articles,links, citations and pics that destroy Protestantism
The first clear attitude to emerge on the relation between Scripture, tradition and the church was the coincidence view: that the teaching of the church, Scripture and tradition coincide. Apostolic tradition is authoritative but does not differ in content from the Scriptures. The teaching of the church is likewise authoritative but is only the proclamation of the apostolic message found in Scripture and tradition. The classical embodiment of the coincidence view is found in the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjYof-1jZnNAhVEIsAKHQVEDZgQFggeMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbiblicalstudies.org.uk%2Fpdf%2Fvox%2Fvol09%2Fscripture_lane.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHuKK0dcvJaz9ZQgsdIpunJKLv4GA
>Disagreement about apocrypha.
>A Quote from St.Augustine.
>Opponent use a different person quote against apocrypha.
>"That's doesn't count because it's an individual's account."
>Disagreement about apocrypha.
>"IT WAS SETTLED AFTER CARTHAGE AND HIPPO!"
>Various saints, councils, literature and a pope didn't think so.
>Produce fallacy.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/alexander_a/canon.iii.v.html
>>76538925
The fact that there are differing views on the canon in the early stages of Christianity decimates Sola Scriptura.
All lists of Scripture throughout the early centuries shows us to varying degrees, the inclusion of the so called Apocrypha. Even fathers who reject it still cites them AS Scripture in practice, showing how stupid your argument is
Harry Y Gamble destroys Sola Scriptura here
>>76539390
>>76539171
>The fact that there are differing views on the canon in the early stages of Christianity decimates Sola Scriptura.
It actually doesn't, because they recognize that the church (or council of Carthage and hippo) published them, but didn't consider them canonical in the sense they were 'God breathed' or from the oracles of God a.k.a the Israelites.
So, removing them is appropriate because they are not the inspired word of God and no room for His true children.
>>76539686
Actually it does. Nobody makes a distinction between the Apocrypha and the other 66 books when citing in practice as we seen Athanasius and Cyril of Jerusalem, both of whom Proturds love to claim for the Apocrypha being unbiblical and added into by Catholicism.
So too bad, removing them is indeed inappropriate. You show no statements or scholarly sources that say otherwise
>>76539686
Here's one from Cyril of Jerusalem
31. He endued with wisdom the soul of Daniel, that young as he was he should become a judge of Elders. The chaste Susanna was condemned as a wanton; (Daniel 13:34-41, or Susanna 41-45); there was none to plead her cause; for who was to deliver her from the rulers? She was led away to death, she was now in the hands of the executioners. But her Helper was at hand, the Comforter, the Spirit who sanctifies every rational nature. Come hither to me, He says to Daniel; young though thou be, convict old men infected with the sins of youth; for it is written, God raised up the Holy Spirit upon a young stripling (Daniel 13:45, or Susanna 45); and nevertheless, (to pass on quickly,) by the sentence of Daniel that chaste lady was saved. We bring this forward as a testimony; for this is not the season for expounding. Nebuchadnezzar also knew that the Holy Spirit was in Daniel; for he says to him, O Belteshazzar, master of the magicians, of whom I know, that the Holy Spirit of God is in thee Daniel 4:9). One thing he said truly, and one falsely; for that he had the Holy Spirit was true, but he was not the master of the magicians, for he was no magician, but was wise through the Holy Ghost. And before this also, he interpreted to him the vision of the Image, which he who had seen it himself knew not; for he says, Tell me the vision, which I who saw it know not (Dan. 2:26, 31). Thou seest the power of the Holy Ghost; that which they who saw it, know not, they who saw it not, know and interpret. 32. And indeed it were easy to collect very many texts out of the Old Testament, and to discourse more largely concerning the Holy Ghost.-Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Lecture XVI:30-31 Volume 7, p. 123.
>>76539686
And from evangelical scholar FF Bruce
From the late 1st century father, Ignatius
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm
From Irenaeus 2nd century
5. Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103418.htm
>>76539889
>Nobody makes a distinction between the Apocrypha and the other 66 books when citing in practice as we seen Athanasius and Cyril of Jerusalem
Except for St.Melito, St.Gregory Nazianzen. Bishop Hilary, St.Philastrius, St.Epiphanius, and St.Jerome (Why didn't mention him?)
Even St.Augstine acknowledged that the the oracles of God didn't considered the apocrypha as inspired, "In that whole period, after the return from the Babylonish captivity, after Malachi, Haggai, Zachariah and Ezra, they had no prophets, even until the time of the advent of our Saviour. As our Lord says, the law and the prophets were until John. And even the reprobate Jews hold that Haggai, Zachariah, Ezra, and Malachi, were the last books received into canonical authority.” The apocryphal books were written after the last prophet. So, to be consistent with St.Augstine we have to acknowledge that God didn't send anyone to make these books divine, which reflects the historian Josephus against Apion, Synopsis Scripturae Sacra and the Council of Partav, council of Laodicea, finally the council of jamnia.
Just because the book were quoted before doesn't make them inspired, otherwise should we consider the talmud or book of Enoch as canonical?
>>76541623
Melito's canon:
Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books;[4] of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book ; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books.
Tell me when you have Wisdom in your canon loser
>>76541623
St Jerome didn't sperg out like an autist and was obviously influenced by the Jewish canon. That's it. He still added them into the Vulgate anyways which makes him not a supporter of Protesturdism
The official position of the Catholic Church is that the Deuterocanons are "lesser" than the other 66 books but still canonical, reflecting Church tradition and overreacting to Protestant removal of them. Either way, Augustine considered them as Canon and that's the point.
[T]he Old Testament is reckoned as consisting of twenty-two books...so that of Moses there be five books...with the Lamentations and the Letter [Baruch 6-Epistle of Jeremiah], and Daniel...bringing the number of the books to twenty-two. It is to be noted also that by adding to these Tobias and Judith, there are twenty-four books, corresponding to the number of letters used by the Greeks." Hilary of Poitiers, Prologue to the Psalms,15 (A.D. 365), in JUR, 1:383
So where is Tobias and Judith in the Prot canon? Hillary considered them canon
As you have listened already to Moses and Isaiah, so listen now to Jeremiah inculcating the same truth as they:--'This is our God, and there shall be none other likened unto Him, Who hath found out all the way of knowledge, and hath given it unto Jacob His servant and to Israel His beloved. Afterward did He shew Himself upon earth and dwelt among men.' [Baruch 3:36-38] Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, 4:42 (A.D. 359), in NPNF2, IX:84
Such suggestions are inconsistent with the clear sense of Scripture For all things, as the Prophet says [ref 2 Maccabees 7:28], were made out of nothing; it was no transformation of existing things, but the creation into a perfect form of the non-existent." Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, 4:16 (A.D. 359), in NPNF2, IX:76
Gregory Nazianzen following Athanasius practice
And how shall we preserve the truth that God pervades all things and fills all, as it is written "Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord (Jer. 23:24)" and "The Spirit of the Lord filleth the world" (Wisdom 1:7) if God partly contains and partly is contained. For either He will occupy an empty Universe, and so all things will have vanished for us, with this result, that we shall have insulted God by making Him a body.... St. Gregory Nazianzen: The Second Theological Oration, VIII, NPNF2, Vol 7, p. 291.
God doth not so; but saith Honour thy father and thy mother, which is the first commandment with promise; that it may be well with thee; and He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. Similarly He gave honour to good and punishment to evil. And, "The blessing of a father strengtheneth the houses of children" (Sirach 3:9), but "the curse of a mother uprooteth the foundations." (Sirach 3:1), See the equality of the legislation. There is one Maker of man and woman; one debt is owed by children to both their parents. St. Gregory Nazianzen, The Fifth Theological Oration , VI, NPNF2, Vol. 7, p. 340.
>>76541623
Epiphanius considers Barauch as canonical, merging it with the Epistle of Jeremiah
And also
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=P4dGDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA146&lpg=PA146&dq=epiphanius+canon&source=bl&ots=et4t-_SV0w&sig=6i01-Kq4YpVWsweHW6duw6Raa_Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiCrp2omJnNAhXpDMAKHaPNBmYQ6AEIMTAD#v=onepage&q=epiphanius%20canon&f=false
>>76542185
>St Jerome didn't sperg out like an autist and was obviously influenced by the Jewish canon.
Was it because he was a Jewish scholar and Athanasius was too? Hmm, the only people study about Hebrews and was involved with the councils didn't accept the Deuterocanonical books ...Hmmmmmmmmmm, Quite.
>He still added them into the Vulgate anyways
Because he was told to.
>which makes him not a supporter of Protesturdism
He certainly weren't be a Cuckolic like you people are today.
>The official position of the Catholic Church is that the Deuterocanons are "lesser" than the other 66 books but still canonical,
Yeah, since council of Trent, which was in the middle of the reformation.
Even a book made in the meddle ages called the Glossa Ordinaria which is an important commentary theologians used to understand the bible displays every apocrypha as not canonical, even Nicholas of Lyra supported.
>>76541623
>St.Philastrius
Rejected Hebrews. Guess that's not in the Protestant canon.
>worshipping a literal communist and globalist who literally licks nigger feet
>this is celebrated on /pol/
You can't make this shit up
>>76544150
>>worshipping
Read CCC
>>76543546
Jerome was influenced by the Jews of his time.
And I had shown how most of the fathers that didn't include the deterocanon as Scripture, cites them as Scripture. Too bad.
Even the canon of the Jews weren't even solidified by the time of Jesus. There is no Council of Jamnia which is largely considered bs today.
And let's see some of Jerome's own writings
Does not the SCRIPTURE say: 'Burden not thyself above thy power' [SIRACH 13:2] Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:207
Do not, my dearest brother, estimate my worth by the number of my years. Gray hairs are not wisdom; it is wisdom which is as good as gray hairs At least that is what Solomon says: "wisdom is the gray hair unto men.’ [Wisdom 4:9]" Moses too in choosing the seventy elders is told to take those whom he knows to be elders indeed, and to select them not for their years but for their discretion (Num. 11:16)? And, as a boy, Daniel judges old men and in the flower of youth condemns the incontinence of age (Daniel 13:55-59, or Story of Susannah 55-59, only found in the Catholic Bibles) Jerome, To Paulinus, Epistle 58 (A.D. 395), in NPNF2, VI:119
"I would cite the words of the psalmist: 'the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,’ [Ps 51:17] and those of Ezekiel 'I prefer the repentance of a sinner rather than his death,’ [Ez 18:23] AND THOSE OF BARUCH,'Arise, arise, O Jerusalem,’ [Baruch 5:5] AND MANY OTHER PROCLAMATIONS MADE BY THE TRUMPETS OF THE PROPHETS." Jerome, To Oceanus, Epistle 77:4 (A.D. 399), in NPNF2, VI:159
This is the same as Athanasius which means the Deuterocanon is simply "lesser" but is still Scripture.
Protties are heretics, plain and simple.
>>76544150
Fedoras are welcome to decimate Protestantism
Do it now
Whats wrong with Protestantism? I don't know too much about it other than that they broke from the Catholic church after feeling like it became corrupt and lost touch
>>76543230
I searched on you link, but it doesn't say anything about Barauch.
>>76543978
The reason why is because we don't know diffidently who the author is. However, due to Sola scriptura we kept Hebrews and we have early manuscripts which means that the author may be an early eye-witness. Same thing applies to Revelation.
More from my man Jerome
"Yet the Holy Spirit in the thirty-ninth(9) psalm, while lamenting that all men walk in a vain show, and that they are subject to sins, speaks thus: "For all that every man walketh in the image."(Psalm 39:6) Also after David's time, in the reign of Solomon his son, we read a somewhat similar reference to the divine likeness. For in the book of Wisdom, which is inscribed with his name, Solomon says: "God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity."(Wisdom 2:23) And again, about eleven hundred and eleven years afterwards, we read in the New Testament that men have not lost the image of God. For James, an apostle and brother of the Lord, whom I have mentioned above--that we may not be entangled in the snares of Origen--teaches us that man does possess God's image and likeness. For, after a somewhat discursive account of the human tongue, he has gone on to say of it: "It is an unruly evil ... therewith bless we God, even the Father and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God."(James 3:8-9) Paul, too, the "chosen vessel,"(Acts 9:15) who in his preaching has fully maintained the doctrine of the gospel, instructs us that man is made in the image and after the likeness of God. "A man," he says, "ought not to wear long hair, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God."(1 Cor. 11:7) He speaks of "the image" simply, but explains the nature of the likeness by the word "glory."
7. Instead of THE THREE PROOFS FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE which you said would satisfy you if I could produce them, BEHOLD I HAVE GIVEN YOU SEVEN"--- Jerome, Letter 51, 6, 7, NPNF2, VI:87-8
>scholarly works that defeat religion on non-religious grounds
*tips funny hat*
>>76538430
>you will never be BTFO out Twitter by the pope
>>76544702
Nothing. Catholics are permanently cucked to their pope and asinine traditions.
>>76544720
The link is to an academical book on the subject that tells us that Epiphanius in practice considers "uncanonical" Scripture as Scripture itself. The citation of NT apocrypha as Scripture is an example given by the link.
There is no Sola Scriptura in the Early Church which is why all the squabbles over books happen to begin with. The Syriac Peshitta doesn't even have five NT books in it and that's being in production since the 2nd century.
For there to be Sola Scriptura, there must be a clear cut definition of the Canon from the beginning. And also, a clear cut definition in Scripture, the definition of the boundaries of the canon.
>>76545151
More like the fact that it's illegitimate shit, so many sources I had posted here which are from the Church Fathers and academical, not apologetical, that shows how Protestantism's core doctrines are not to be found in Early Christianity.
>>76544442
"All besides them,” says he, “must be placed among the apocryphal. Therefore, Wisdom, which is ascribed to Solomon, the book of Jesus the son of Sirach, Judith, Tobit and Pastor, are not in the Canon. I have found the first book of Maccabees in Hebrew, (Chaldee;) the second in Greek, and, as the style shows, it must have been composed in that language"
As the church reads the books of Judith, Tobit, and the Maccabees, but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so, also, she may read these two books for the edification of the common people, but not as authority to confirm any of the doctrines of the church."
Yes, he quoted from them, but the book of Jude also mentions passage from book of Enoch. We have just to observe that any Christian to accept the BoE based on the fact it was quoted.
>>76545318
>many sources I had posted here which are from the Church Fathers and academical
i.e. made-up shit that isn't in the New Testament and butthurt Catholics
Aren't there children you need to anal rape?
>>76545485
Hold on, he quotes them AS Scripture.
Which I had shown time and time again is the case with many of the Church Fathers Protestants throw in to supposedly show how the deuterocanon is not Scripture.
Too bad, for your point to work, Jerome and others must cite them differently than Scripture.
This isn't the case as I had shown here
>>76538430
>>76545642
Harry Y Gamble and ANS Lane are both Protestant
>>76546014
More
http://www.academia.edu/185285/Why_Luther_is_not_Quite_Protestant_The_Logic_of_Faith_in_a_Sacramental_Promise
Which Sola Fide is the correct one?
Luthor's or Calvon's?
2nd century apologist Justin Martyr
And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.
At least Luthor got this right
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm
>>76538430
Since cuckolics are becoming more Protestant since Vatican 2.0, hurl in some cuckolic memes as well
hehehe
>>76538430
>bla bla bla bla i'm a cucktholic who loves dogma
Is there a more low-energy religion than Catholicism? I don't think so. Catholic church is boooooring
>>76547628
But hey, at least it's actually more closer to Christianity than Protestantism.
>Christianity
Come on now phams
>that pic
muh sides, nigel. muh sides
>>76546404
Protestant are not that bad.
We persecuted and kicked a lot of them out of France and we lost a shitton of hard working and brilliant people.
That's probably one of the biggest chronic mistake of french monarchy during late Middle Age and Renaissance.
>>76549381
Have you seen Calvin's Geneva?
That's the Christian version of an Islamic State
>>76547080
nwo shill like most Christian religious leaders
>believe in Christianity
Christianity is the belief or knowledge and walking with God.
Everyone has to believe in Christianity, because it objectively exists.
>>76538430
Wait, the Pope has banter?
>>76549597
>Calvin's Geneva
I read about Calvin, mostly because I am born 40km away from its town.
Comparaison with ISIS is a bit harsh but I can see where you take it.
However Calvin was created by the french persecution against protestant, Henri II managed the issue so poorly that it created conflict for the next 2 centuries.
France and even the world would have look vastly different if french religion wars did not happen and if the Huguenots stayed at home.
>>76552270
It would be better if the Catholic Church didn't act so autist towards Luthor.
The comparison to him to running an authoritarian state is not a harsh one. It's the fact.
Fuck Calvin you stupid French Protestuck
>>76551327
I don't believe that that screenshot is real
>>76552485
I'm neutral on the subject, I'm agnostic.
>>76553394
Then let it be said that Calvinism is absurd
>>76546553
If apocrypha are so holy, why Jesus validated the hebrew canon instead of septuagint.
>>76538430
I don't care which theology I have to subscribe to, I just don't want to go to hell. Which one of the branches in this thread has the least chance of a future of eternal suffering?
>>76554032
Explain this
>>76546295
True faith inevitably leads to works.
You can't have works without faith.
>>76554390
Correct.
Except "faith" in Sola Fide is in fact god mind controlling you and not of one's own!
It's passive
>>76554271
Definitely not Protestant
This is all time you are wasting that could be better spent loving and praising god
Christians are always the worst advert for christianity
>>76554693
I do that by fucking ten kids in church everyday.
What have you done?
>>76554468
>shit that's not in Scripture
alrighty then.
>>76554271
Orthodox. We don't believe heaven and hell are two different places.
>>76555297
Tell that to Paul
By contrast, many recent studies of the Greek word pistis have concluded that its primary and most common meaning was faithfulness, meaning firm commitment in an interpersonal relationship.[14][15][16][17] As such, the word could be almost synonymous with "obedience" when the people in the relationship held different status levels (e.g. a slave being faithful to his master). Far from being equivalent to "lack of human effort", the word seems to imply and require human effort. The interpretation of Paul's writings that we need to "faithfully" obey God's commands is quite different from one which sees him saying that we need to have "faith" that he will do everything for us. This is also argued to explain why James was adamant that "faith without works is dead" and that "a man is saved by works, and not by faith alone", while also saying that to merely believe places one on the same level as the demons (see James 2). The "new" perspective argues that James was concerned with those who were trying to reduce faith to an intellectual subscription without any intent to follow God or Jesus, and that Paul always intended "faith" to mean a full submission to God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Perspective_on_Paul#Faith.2C_or_faithfulness
The precise way in which an expiatory sacrifice was thought to ―work‖ is never clarified. It has been maintained by some that an element of substitution was always understood and that the sacrificial victim was thought of as enduring the (divine) punishment for the sin committed, thus enabling the sinner to go free. Such a model has of course exerted considerable influence on popular Christian piety as an interpretation of Jesus‘ atoning death. This probably reads too much into the rationale of the sacrificial system. It is in fact very unlikely that the sacrificial victim was ever thought of as a substitute in this way. Such a rationale might lie behind the ceremony of the Day of Atonement, when the priest laid hands on one of the goats, thereby transferring the sins to the goat (Lev 16:21). However, this goat was not sacrificed: the goat on whom the sins were ―laid‖ was the scapegoat which was driven away into the desert, and it was the other goat which was offered in sacrifice. In fact it was considered vitally important that the sacrificial victim should be pure (see Young 1979: 52). Thus it is unlikely that the sacrificial system was ever conceived of in such a substitutionary sense.-Atonement in the NT, Anchor Bible Dictionary pg 815
>>76555553
That isn't to say God controls you. Those are two vastly different things.
>>76552830
It's all real, the master of banter will become president.
>>76555844
Is effort required for Salvation and needed in the process of it?
>It is obvious from the NT that Christians initially understood Scripture to mean what only later was called the OT. When Paul repeated the tradition about Christ‘s death and resurrection, the ―Scriptures‖ by which the Christian preaching was demonstrated were the sacred books of Israel (1 Corinthians 15). Scripture in this sense demonstrated the truth of the Christian claim in a number of different ways: by prophecy, by type and foreshadowing, by testimony lists, by allegory, and by simple proof-texting. No one method prevailed for employing the authority of the OT. Moreover, it began to be clear that final authority rested in the Christian preaching and not in the sacred writings thought to demonstrate it.-Anchor Bible Dictionary, pg 7883
It's a shame that the Catholic Church is dead and being worn like a skin by protestant heretics. At least Orthodox hasn't been completely taken over. The decision to make an authoritative set of scriptures was a mistake, set words and writing are limited by language and imperfect communicators, nor are they apostles or bishops, rather the fire of faith can only be spread by man to man through extensive two-way communication, teaching, and mentorship. The Church first sinned by trying to being the kingdom of heaven to earth rather than stay apart from the world, allowing the clergy who represents truth to mingle with and exercise power, wherever truth and power meet, the needs of power will always come first. Then seeking escape from the weakness of corrupted clergy (instead of having faith in the Church that God would reveal those who kept faith in uninterrupted apostolic succession) the Bible became an idol and wreaked devastation on the church.
>>76549381
Thanks for that really.
>sola scriptura
>JUST LIKE THE ORIGINAL CHRISTIAN BEFORE CONSTANTINE GUYS :DDDD
I never got this. The Bible in its current form didn't even exist for almost 300 years of early Christianity
Also How can they use the Bible to disprove Catholicism and Apostolic churches in general when the Church fucking formalized the bible at the Council of Nicea in 325ad? How does that logic work?
>>76556098
Yes. Why?
>>76556549
It was never formalized. Only the Reformation caused the boundary of Scripture to be definitively set in stone.
>>76556098
>ven so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself - James 2:17
Jesus said we need both Faith and works
>>76556590
So how is that Sola Fide in the Protestant sense which denies the role of effort in Salvation and advocate monergism?
>>76556668
True. Not finalized until the Council of Trent during the counter reformation. I meant that it was standardized for the first time to an extent at the Nicea
>>76557036
True faith implies works, m8
Faith without works is dead. All protestants know this."
t. presbyterian
>>76556549
They just made shit up as they went along. Becoming Lutheran was a good way as a prince to seize church lands and make a killing. So guess what happened after the Peace of Augsburg when that wasn't possible anymore, suddenly princes became Calvinist and still seized church lands because the Calvinists were not included in the treaty. It was just about power, money and land.
>>76538430
Never imagined that the pope was into top bantz
R E K T
E
K
T
>>76545189
>academical
Academic you idiot.
>>76538430
>my belief in a 2,000 year old Jewish fantasy novel is better than your belief in a 2,000 year old Jewish fantasy novel
>>76557467
>Presbyterian
This means there is not even any effort in Salvation as God predestines ALL souls according to your theology. He does so from the beginning of time NOT on the basis of foreknowledge but his own intent.
By extension then, your version of Salvation is monergistic and incompatible with Scripture and the consensus of the Church Fathers throughout the ages, ALL who emphasize the need for effort in Salvation.
>>76557812
Does it matter yuo grandma nasi?
>>76557894
And my dick is longer than yours
>>76554133
>>76546256
>Yes Goyim, eat the bread and drink the wine that magically turns into the actual flesh and blood of Christ... Good... eat your God...
>>76558465
>TFW you were raised in Protestantism and stopped being "Christian"
>TFW you realize Protestantism was heresy all along and were never actually a Christian, an apostate of heresy rather than Christianity.
>TFW you are surrounded by heretics and no uncorrupted Bishops from an uninterrupted apostolic succession are available to find out if actual Christianity is right.
>>76558794
That's some retarded ritual you have there, but you have to have stuff like that to convert the Pagans.
>>76559717
That's what the Early Christians believed in
Paul. a. 1 Cor 11:17–34.
From a literary standpoint the oldest account of the institution of the Lord‘s
Supper is found in 1 Cor 11:23–26. Paul reports the account essentially in the form in which he had
learned to know it in Antioch in the 40‘s and as he had passed it on to the Corinthians when he established
the church there. The traditional words ―receive‖ and ―deliver‖ (paralambanein and paradidonai) in v 23a
are well known in the scholarly language of Rabbinism (cf. Midr. Qoh. 12:11) and of Hellenism (Diod.
5.2,3). They clearly indicate that the vv 23b–25 are a fragment of tradition (possibly with some Pauline
touches). ―From the kyrios‖ points to the earthly Jesus as the source of this catena of traditional elements.
At the same time he is seen as the present exalted Lord who gives the sacrament its permanent validity.
The rather scanty reference to the historic event of the passion in v 23b (―on the night when he was
betrayed‖) sets the words of Institution off from the timeless, cyclic myths and formulae of the Mysteries.
The traditional text lays out another aspect of the meal in which the breaking of the bread at the
beginning of the meal and the blessing of the cup at the end (cf. 11:25a ―in the same way also the cup,
after supper‖) surround the main meal. The words ―for you,‖ spoken at the breaking of the bread, are
addressed to the participants of the Lord‘s Supper; they draw them into participation of the salvatory self sacrifice
of Jesus. The contents of the cup in v 25b are not directly identified as the blood. Rather, in the
foreground stands the sealing of the eschatological new covenant in the death on the cross. Besides its
vertical dimension (the God of the covenant creating a new people), this covenant has a horizontal aspect:
the celebrants are brought together into covenant community.
Anchor Bible Dictionary-Lord's Supper, pg 5363
>>76545704
/thread
I considered myself an agnostic, when I was younger. I had to find the truth of Christianity on my own. The boring rituals that were forced down my throat as a child turned me away from God. The scriptures are a foundation to build from. You have to actually go out and experience spirituality, for them to mean anything. This is why I don't find Catholicism appealing. It's blind repetition, with no passion or understanding. Protestants my be getting the finer details wrong, but the personal relationship and understanding of God is the ultimate goal.
http://www.protestanterrors.com/
>>76559963
Like I said again, need wacky shit to attract the Pagans.
>>76557949
Predestiny doesn't mean there is no effort. If you are set on finishing a race, you still have to work to finish it.
Your post is inane, and you're masking that fact by using big words.
Nice how all of your posts are simply shitting on denominations besides yours.
>>76560539
Except this is bullshit.
When you have a deity that predestines your fate before he makes everything, that means that every event is intentionally put into place for the outcome to be realized.
Hence, there is no effort on part of the individual according to your system, just a malevolent and deceitful deity who pulls all of his subjects by his strings.
I'm not twisting anything, that's just facts.
All my sources are academic sources or from the Church Fathers so my posts are justified, yours, not so at this point.
>>76560396
Yes which is why even Paul have to do it.
>>76560344
Protestantism gets ALL the details wrong. All the sources I had provided ITT shows it
>>76557949
From the Westminster Confession of Faith
II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions;[4] yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.[5]
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html?body=/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_III.html
>>76560943
God is transcendent of time. He doesn't control your actions. He just knows what you'll do.
Your knowledge on theology is very elementary, bud. You should thus be less aggressive and be more open to learning.
>>76561345
Hold on, I'm explaining the Calvinist view and I even gave evidence from the Westminster Confession of Faith.
Actually look at the context of discussion before you comment doofus
>>76561479
Be more open to understanding, and less defensive, doofus.
You're the ignorant one, and yet you're the belligerent one.
Shouldn't you go double-check with one of your priests before you try to evangelize?
>>76561739
Here is this moron with no knowledge of theology wanting to lecture me when I gave my evidence.
The Westminster Confession of faith makes its definition of predestination very clear
V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, has chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory,[9] out of His mere free grace and love, ;[10] and all to the praise of His glorious grace.[11]
>without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto
And there you go, predestination being not based on foreknowledge
Just look at how pathetic you are right now loser
>>76561986
>Here is this moron with no knowledge of theology
Matthew 5:22
"And if you call your brother a fool, then you will be in danger of the fire of hell."
They call that irony.
Oh boy, you sure just debunked 500 years of calvinism with this post! Good going!
guess I'm a #popecuck now. You guys don't practice the pay-to-get-into-heaven anymore, do ya?
>>76562714
Here, the Protcuck decides to play arrogance.
Either you go the route of Barth and Plantinga which requires modification to the doctrine, or you have to accept the implications of Calvinism in its full and true form.
Too bad.
>The divine Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as opposed to human writings; and the oral tradition or living faith of the catholic church from the apostles down, as opposed tothe varying opinions of heretical sects—together form one infallible source and rule of faith. Both are vehicles of the same substance: the saving revelation of God in Christ; with this difference in form and office, that the church tradition determines the canon, furnishes the key and true interpretation of the Scriptures, and guards them against heretical abuse. (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI, 1981 ed., vol. 3, p. 606)
>>76562926
>you have to accept the implications of Calvinism in its full and true form.
And? You haven't indicated a problem with that, however much you seem to think so.
>>76563046
It entails a deity who deceives for he gives the illusion to every sentient creature, the illusion of self determination when there is in fact none!
This deity also caused every evil, calamity and atrocity as well whilst absolving himself of responsibility!
Here, Peter Van Ingawen in his essay in the Oxford Handbook to Philosophy of Religion shows us why Calvinism's use of compatabilism is stupid,
Consider the lower social orders in Brave New World, the “deltas” and “epsilons.” These unfortunate people have their deepest desires chosen for them by others, by the “alphas” who make up the highest social stratum. What the deltas and epsilons primarily desire is to do what the alphas tell them. This is their primary desire because it has been implanted in them by prenatal and postnatal conditioning. (If Huxley were writing today, he might have added genetic engineering to the alphas' list of resources for determining the desires of their slaves.) It would be hard to think of beings who better fitted the description “lacks free will” than the deltas and epsilons of Brave New World. And yet, if the compatibilists' account of free will is right, the deltas and epsilons are exemplars of beings with free will. Each of them is always doing exactly what he wants, after all, and who among us is in that fortunate position? What he wants is to do as he is told by those appointed over him, of course, but the compatibilists' account of free will says nothing about the content of a free agent's desires: it requires only that there be no barrier to acting on them. The compatibilists' account of free will is, therefore, if not evidently false, at least highly implausible—for it has the highly implausible consequence that the deltas and epsilons are free agents. And an opponent of the free-will defense cannot show that that story fails to represent a “real possibility” by deducing its falsity from a highly implausible theory.(pg 200)
>>76563476
>It entails a deity who deceives for he gives the illusion to every sentient creature, the illusion of self determination when there is in fact none!
You're applying human-centric, time-centric, and space-centric logic to GOD, who is transcendent of all things in our worldly universe.
You sound akin to the edgy 12 year old who decides he's an atheist because "there's so much evil in the world! Why does God let it happen??"
Is it Catholics, or is it just you, that believe God is beholden to our rules of time and logic?
We are preordained, but we still have a choice. It's a paradox to human minds until you realize God is above human minds.
>>76563838
Except we know that according to Calvinism, God's predestination is based on God's own will with no merit of foreknowledge as established in the Westminster Confession of Faith.
Calvin himself accepts that God also predestines people to Hell.
So no, the only ones who can play the "beyond logic" game are the non Calvinists or those who had modified their Calvinism to accommodate free will.
Because of the fact that God didn't predestine out on the basis of foreknowledge, it means he does so by setting up events such that his predestination will be that which will be the outcome.
So no, everyone in your system is preordained and possesses no free will since that is the very way your system had defined its form of predestination.
>>76564148
NOT AN ARGUMENT
I conceded all that already, peabrain.
>>76564235
GOod, you just proved my points.
Your god is a puppeteer who predestines Satan to rebel against him!
Look at the stupidity of this when he blames Satan whom he is in total control of!
>>76564394
Is your God any different?
I've heard Catholics being called atheists or pagans before. You're making me believe it.
>>76564235
Also look at how you try to windowdress your fucking argument.
HERE'S WHAT YOU FUCKING SAID YOU LIAR
>We are preordained, but we still have a choice. It's a paradox to human minds until you realize God is above human minds.
If you truly accepted what I had pointed out, you know there is NO choice at all. Fucking illiterate Prot hilly billy moron
>>76564514
Such anger.
Are you sure you know Jesus?
Do your "God ordained" priests know Jesus?
Catholicism is a sham, and you're too simple to realize "free will" is a pointless concept that really is a matter of philosophical difference. The point is, everything is preordained. If you don't believe that, you don't know God.
>>76564492
Did I say that the God I believe in actively predestines everyone's fates prior to the formation of the universe and does so by intention and not foreknowledge?
Did I say that God damns people to Hell?
Did I say that God plays around with Satan and blames Satan for shit when Satan was controlled by God like a puppet?
Did I believe in a deity who does these? NO!
And neither would anyone in the Early Church would either, except the Gnostics
>>76564726
"God ordained" priests who fuck altar boys, I mean.
>>76564726
Your god is a deceitful liar who creates the illusion of self determination in all creatures when they have none!
Disgusting!
Also ITT I had posted numerous scholarly sources and the Church Fathers showing how Protesturdism is a BIG SHAM!
>>76564729
Atheist confirmed.
What does your "God" even do, then?
Charge people to get into heaven? That's what your church believed for a few centuries.
>>76564778
‘A point on which they (the Eastern Fathers) were a ll agreed was that man’s will remains free; we are responsible for our acts. This was a vital article in their anti-Manichaean propaganda, but it raised the question of man’s need of divine grace. This issue is usually posed in the terms which the later Augus tinian discussion is made familiar, and so viewed their po sition was that grace and free will co-operate. Our salvation comes, stated Gregory Nazianzen, both fro m ourselves and from God. If God’s help is necessar y for doing good and if the good will itself comes fr om Him, it is equally true that the initiative rest s with with man’s free will... Although we have only cited t hese two (Ambrose and Ambrosiaster), there is littl e doubt that their views were representative (of the Western Fathers). On the related question of grace, the parallel truths of man’s free will and his need of God’s help were maintained, although we can discern increasing emphasis being laid on the latter. ‘We m ust be and directed’, wrote Hilary, ‘by His grace’; but he makes it plain the initial move in God’s directi on lies at our own disposition. God’s mercy, he poi nts out elsewhere, does not exclude man’s desert, and a man ’s own will must take the lead in lifting him from sin. ‘It is for God to call’, remarks Jerome, ‘and for u s to believe’. The part of grace, it would seem, is to perfect that which the will has freely determined; yet our will is only ours by God’s mercy.’- J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (New York, NY: Harper One, 1978), p.352, 356
>>76564876
>Atheist
>Still think I'm a Catholic
Grow a fucking brain! Even a jellyfish has more intelligence than you
>>76564991
So you're saying my religion is bullshit because it's too mean?
:(
Find Jesus or burn in hell, friend.
Clement of Rome against Calvinism
‘For no other reason does God punish the sinner eit her in the present or future world, except because He knows that the sinner was able to conquer but neglected to gai n the victory.’ (Clement of Rome, Recognitions 111. 23, V. 8, IX. 30.)
>>76564876
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/myths-about-indulgences
>>76565071
Your concept of God is not the real God. That makes you an atheist. Your conception of God is a simplistic, watered-down, false version. I guess Catholicism had to appeal to the masses.
>>76565136
>Point illustrating Early Christians believing contra Calvinism
>Thinks my argument rests in feeling
Look at how stupid you are right now
>>76565209
Your god isn't the Christian God at all, which is why only the Gnostics believe in predestination in the Calvinist sense
More from Early Christianity contra Calvinism
‘As a king sends his son, who is also a king, so se nt He Him; as God He sent Him; as to men He sent Hi m; as a Saviour He sent Him, and as seeking to persuade, no t to compel us; for violence has no place in the ch aracter of God. As calling us He sent Him, not as vengefully p ursuing us; as loving us He sent Him, not as judgin g us.’ ( Epistle to Diognetus , chapter 7, verse 4)
Early Church against Calvinism
‘God’s foreknowledge is intuitive, not active, and is caused by man's choices.’ And also, ‘We have le arned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishmen ts, chastisements, and rewards are rendered accordi ng to the merit of each man's actions. Otherwise, if all things hap pen by fate, then nothing is in our own power. For if it be predestined that one man be good and another man ev il, then the first is not deserving of praise or th e other to be blamed. Unless humans have the power of avoiding ev il and choosing good by free choice, they are not a ccountable for their actions-whatever they may be... For neith er would a man be worthy of reward or praise if he did not of himself choose the good, but was merely created for that end. Likewise, if a man were evil, he would n ot deserve punishment, since he was not evil of himself, being unable to do anything else than what he was made f or.’ (Justin Martyr, First Apology , chapter 43)
>>76565228
Matthew 5:22
"And if you call your brother a fool, then you will be in danger of the fire of hell."
Faith without works is dead. Methinks you have no true faith.
I'll pray for you, pagan.
>>76565606
I side with history moron.
I side with the writers of Scripture and of the Church Fathers from beginning where they all say contra Calvinism!
ALL rational beings ought not to believe in such a deity you worship.
>>76565760
You're full of anger.
Are you afraid you're preordained for hell?
>>76565907
My anger is directed against the evil doctrine of Calvinism.
Such evil doctrine must be eradicated
>>76546717
>goes to /pol/
>still believes the Westboro Baptist Church isn't right
>>76565990
Stay in your hellhole and keep LARPing, silly limey fuck.
Come over here and try to eradicate it and you'll meet Satan early.
Protestant Penal Substitutionary Atonement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWAUhadJzTk
>>76566174
>Cannot answer arguments and problems
>Become arrogant and fear monger
>>76554271
Roman Catholic.
However, remember to joim because you truly wish to love God and serve Him. You can't turn your back on Him to enter Heaven
Perhaps the most important aspect of the rule of faith is that it gives us what the Church conceived to be ‘the main body of truth’ (to use Irenaeus’ phrase). The Scriptures are, after all, a body of documents testifying to God’s activity towards men in Christ. They are not a rule of faith, nor a list of doctrines, nor a manual of the articles of a Christian man’s belief. In the rule of faith we have a key to what the Church thought the Scriptures came to, where it was, so to speak, that their weight fell, what was their drift. This interpretation of their drift was itself tradition, a way of handling the Scriptures, a way of living in them and being exposed to their effect, which, while not an original part of the Christian Gospel, not itself the paradosis par excellence, had been developed from the Gospel itself, from its heart, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit as an essential part of the existence of the Christian faith in history…
We cannot recognize the rule of faith as original tradition, going back by oral continuity independently of Scripture to Christ and his apostles. But we can recognize it as the tradition in which the Church was interpreting Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and as such claim it as an essential ingredient of historical Christianity. (R.P.C. Hanson, Tradition In The Early Church, pp. 128, 129)
>>76566327
>cannot answer arguments
Are arguments questions?
Ask, and I will explain to the best of my abilities.
Help me out, guys. Should I read the works of Thomas Aquinas? I've heard he's a big deal or something.
>>76566632
Yes. He's one of the best theologians the Church has had, period.
Summa Theologica explains our Catholic Teaching, Summa Contra Gentiles defends our faith against Jews and Muslims, and Summa Contra Graecorum explains some misconceptions the Orthodox have of the Roman Catholic.
Would recommend highly
>>76566535
Where is your shitty doctrine in Early Christianity?
Go on, I'm waiting.
NO apologetical sources, only academic and direct Church Father quotes
CALVINIST PSEUDOPHILOSOPHY DEBUNKED
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUNaCD2HObo
When does this eternal meme stop! Why do the mods even let these stupid threads infest /pol/!?
It's as if there's been a conspiracy to destroy this shitty board..
Religious people are morons.
>>76566861
What do you mean? All Christians were Catholics originally until the Catholic Church lost their way. We still say the Apostles Creed.
>>76567080
Where is Calvinist Predestination in Early Christianity?
Where is the Calvinist view of the Eucharist in Early Christianity?
I'm waiting
>>76567165
You're a terrible person to talk to.
I'm not answering any more loaded bullshit bait questions.
But when the adversary of the race of the righteous, the envious, malicious, and wicked one, perceived the impressive nature of his martyrdom, and [considered] the blameless life he had led from the beginning, and how he was now crowned with the wreath of immortality, having beyond dispute received his reward, he did his utmost that not the least memorial of him should be taken away by us, although many desired to do this, and to become possessors of his holy flesh. For this end he suggested it to Nicetes, the father of Herod and brother of Alce, to go and entreat the governor not to give up his body to be buried, "lest," said he, "forsaking Him that was crucified, they begin to worship this one." This he said at the suggestion and urgent persuasion of the Jews, who also watched us, as we sought to take him out of the fire, being ignorant of this, that it is neither possible for us ever to forsake Christ, who suffered for the salvation of such as shall be saved throughout the whole world (the blameless one for sinners ), nor to worship any other. For Him indeed, as being the Son of God, we adore; but the martyrs, as disciples and followers of the Lord, we worthily love on account of their extraordinary affection towards their own King and Master, of whom may we also be made companions and fellow disciples!
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0102.htm
Sounds so similar to Protshit accusations of saint worship
>>76567226
Why should I believe in some new contradictory shit someone made up which is different from that of the Early Christians?
>>76567226
He's religious what did you expect?
"Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the Apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the Tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the Apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the Apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the Tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?" - AH, 3, 4, 1
>>76567060
>>76567341
>>76567341
You are talking to someone who thinks you are a mere puppet!
>>76567294
You mean religion?
"Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy Priests, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, inharmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behoves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures. For the Church has been planted as a garden in this world; therefore says the Spirit of God, 'Thou mayest freely eat from every tree of the garden' that is, Eat ye from every Scripture of the Lord; but ye shall not eat with an uplifted mind, nor touch any heretical discord." - AH, 5, 20, 2
>>76567294
In what ways is it contradictory? I invite you to make an actual case. The belligerent and angry way in which you're responding indicates that you're the one who is insecure in his religion, tbqh.
>>76567487
Which is worse, a religion that is contradictory to its history or religion itself?
>>76567466
I could say the same about you guys
>>76567577
Where is predestination in the Calvinist sense in the Church Fathers?
>>76567582
The latter
>>76567643
Are you asking me to dig through Catholic theology and find an example of a pope talking about predestination?
Do you really consider this an argument? Really?
>>76567747
There, proving my point.
THank you for being an idiot
"Now, what that was which they [the Apostles] preached—in other words, what it was which Christ revealed to them—can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very Churches which the Apostles founded in person, by declaring the Gospel to them directly themselves, both vivâ voce, as the phrase is, and subsequently by their epistles. If, then, these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the Apostolic Churches—those moulds and original sources of the Faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the (said) Churches received from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savours of contrariety to the Truth of the Churches and Apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the Tradition of the Apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood. We hold communion with the Apostolic Churches because our doctrine is in no respect different from theirs. This is our witness of truth." - Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, 21
>>76567818
Half of your posts have been calling my stupid, the otehr half of your posts have been loaded questions.
You're making a poor case for Catholicism.
>>76567747
But even if a discussion [with the heretics] from the Scriptures should not turn out in such a way as to place both sides on a par, (yet) the natural order of things would require that this point should be first proposed, which is now the only one which we must discuss: “With whom lies that very Faith to which the Scriptures belong. From what and through whom, and when, and to whom, has been handed down that rule, by which men become Christians?” For wherever it shall be manifest that the true Christian rule and Faith shall be, there will likewise be the true Scriptures and expositions thereof, and all the Christian Traditions." - Tertullian, The Prescription Against the Heretics, 19
"Since this is the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged to belong to us [the Church], 'as many as walk according to the rule,' which the Church has handed down from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, the reason of our position is clear, when it determines that heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to the Scriptures, since we, without the Scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the Scriptures. For as they are heretics, they cannot be true Christians, because it is not from Christ that they get that which they pursue of their own mere choice, and from the pursuit incur and admit the name of heretics. Thus, not being Christians, they have acquired no right to the Christian Scriptures; and it may be very fairly said to them, 'Who are you? When and whence did you come? As you are none of mine, what have you to do with that which is mine?'"- Tertullian, The Prescription Against the Heretics, 37
TERTULLIAN AGAINST SOLA SCRIPTURA!!
>>76567818
Matthew 5:22
"And if you call your brother a fool, then you will be in danger of the fire of hell."
Maybe if you brushed up on Scripture instead of letting your Pope tell you what to think, you won't burn in hell.
>>76567882
My argument is that your religion is illegitimate and false.
It isn't contingent upon Catholicism which shows how fallacious you have to me.
>>76538430
BY
GRACE
ALONE
>>76568002
Here, the Protshit Calvinshit have to play fear mongering, be arrogant and hurl in red herring to answer the argument!
>>76543546
St. Athanasius and St. Jerome were in no way, shape or form jews. It is obvious that all you have is lies and slander..
>>76568080
Where in the Early Church is SOla Scriptura, a core tenet of Protshit?
>>76567882
>>76560943
>>76561171
>>76561986
>>76563476
>>76564148
>>76564394
>>76564514
LOOK AT YOUR AUTISM =WHEN YOU ADDRESSED NONE OF THESE
SOLA SCRIPTURA BTFO
>>After all, in their exegesis the early Church theologians neither received the Bible as a 'Bible without notes' nor interpreted it in a vacuum. They received along with the Bible a tradition of interpreting it for a worshipping community and they proceeded to interpret it for a worshipping community. The study of the Bible as a scientific discipline to be carried on for its own sake was very far from their thought, and at all times has been, one suspects, a mere will-o'-the-wisp. This does not mean that the Fathers sacrificed everything for the sake of the edification of the faithful or for the consistent articulation of a doctrinal system. They sacrificed too much for these ends, but they were not unconscious of limits and controls on this process imposed by the Bible itself. Their purpose in exegesis was nevertheless purely practical, and we do not understand their exegesis until we understand this. They began the story of the Church's relations with the Bible, in which the Bible and the life of the Church were to interact for all the centuries to come, each correcting, deepening, fertilising the other. They inaugurated the Church's dance with the Bible, fancifully perhaps, but not irresponsibly, perhaps erratically, but at least gaily.-Cambridge History of the Bible, pg 453
>>76568447
>>76568153
>Protestants think everyone was wrong for 1500 years
>>76568589
They have to think that God abandoned his people for centuries
>>76568009
Is it also contingent upon Catholicism to ignore Scripture? You are lost. Get found.
>>76568087
>Scripture is a red herring
>>76568839
>>76568589
The Catholic Church lost its way.
>>76568839
All of those Marion apparitions never happened apparently.
>>76569038
The Catholic church never held the same beliefs that protestants hold now.
see>>76560359
>>76568941
>>76569038
PRoVING my point yet again.
Can't answer arguments
Have to be an arrogant autistic shit
And you have the audacity to judge the Apostles and the Church Fathers who all disagree with you?
FUCK OFF
“If one attempts to conceive the reference of explications of a text with regard to the intelligible more accurately, the shape of a manifold meaning of Scripture proves to be implicitly determined by philosophical categories, in part at least by Platonic philosophy. Th e (philosophical) allegory is primarily interested in how the problem is set, and this can be the philosophical and theological thought respectively, or the truth of reality in the poetry of Homer and the Platonic myths. One of the central aspects of (neo-) Platonic philosophy can be described as the presence of the prototype in the image.
Therefore, one can draw a conclusion from the image to the prototype or source because of an analogous structure: If the prototype causes something, the prototype must be present in the thing caused in some sense and, therefore, identical with it in some respect. However, the thing established by causation must also be different from the cause, so that analogy implies identity and difference at the same time. Th us, the sensual can be thought of as an effective sign of the intelligible, and the intelligible again as a sign of the transcending reality as such, because of the presence which had already been established within the intelligible: this is the structure in which the function of language and the theory of allegorical understanding can be seen in the context of a Platonizing thought”-(pg 217-218, Handbook of Patristic Exegesis: The Bible in Ancient Christianity)
>>76569229
Of course it did.
>>76569235
Good argument
>>76569343
When did the church believe:
>sola scriptura
>sola fide
>sacraments aren't necessary
>eucharist isn't literaly Jesus' body and blood
And what wonder is it if those in Christ who were entrusted with such a duty by God, appointed those [ministers] before mentioned, when the blessed Moses also, "a faithful servant in all his house," noted down in the sacred books all the injunctions which were given him, and when the other prophets also followed him, bearing witness with one consent to the ordinances which he had appointed? For, when rivalry arose concerning the priesthood, and the tribes were contending among themselves as to which of them should be adorned with that glorious title, he commanded the twelve princes of the tribes to bring him their rods, each one being inscribed with the name of the tribe. And he took them and bound them [together], and sealed them with the rings of the princes of the tribes, and laid them up in the tabernacle of witness on the table of God. And having shut the doors of the tabernacle, he sealed the keys, as he had done the rods, and said to them, Men and brethren, the tribe whose rod shall blossom has God chosen to fulfil the office of the priesthood, and to minister unto Him. And when the morning had come, he assembled all Israel, six hundred thousand men, and showed the seals to the princes of the tribes, and opened the tabernacle of witness, and brought forth the rods. And the rod of Aaron was found not only to have blossomed, but to bear fruit upon it. What think ye, beloved? Did not Moses know beforehand that this would happen? Undoubtedly he knew; but he acted thus, that there might be no sedition in Israel, and that the name of the true and only God might be glorified; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm
A literal priesthood in the 1st century church
>>76569522
>implying people can't be wrong for 1500 years
That is a non-argument to begin with. It's the same as me countering that you believe half of all Christians have been wrong for 500 years.
>sola scriptura
Does the Catholic church not hold that Scripture is the Word of God?
>sacraments
Your 7 sacraments were not decided upon until 1000 AD. However, Jesus only instituted 2.
>sola fide
Faith without works is dead. True faith implies works.
Curious Atheist here.
Looking at converting to a Protestant.
Which denomination should I look into?
>>76570284
https://youtube.com/watch?v=5bVEXZ38Vs8
Here, watch OP get refuted by his own sources... and by the Scriptures, of course. Remember, pray for those who persecute you.
>>76570397
It means you are stupid for converting to the worst form of Christianity ever!
>>76570484
Uh okay, asshole. I haven't even converted yet.
>>76570450
That video cannot refute ALL that I had posted here.
NOW SHOW ME WHERE MY CITATIONS OF THE CHURCH FATHERS ARE WRONG USING ACADEMIC SOURCES AND THE FATHERS THEMSELVES, NOT FUCKING APOLOGISTS RETARD
>>76570615
It literally refutes everything you have posted in this thread. An 8 hour documentary can cover a lot of information.
>>76570284
Scripture the Word of God?
YOU WORSHIP A FUCKING BOOK!
Scripture is the word of God, not The Word. That is only reserved for Christ Alone.
Also, the fact that there are no Church Fathers or sources that support Reformed theology throughout the ages proves the leaf's argument as valid!
If your position is valid, I expect to find it in all ages consistently!
>>76558465
Is that a selfie, shlomo? Or did you just fall for the jewish lies?
>>76570767
The documentary quotes the Early Church Fathers extensively, and also Catholic scholars and theologians.
>>76570397
As a Catholic I cannot recommend any protestant denominations. Look at what the early church fathers practiced/preached.
http://www.catholic.com/for-non-christians
>>76544366
>Fedoras
>read
>>76570767
It doesn't.
Too bad. THe fact that you can't even show some key points from it and have to resort to a fucking biased apologist who misrepresents scholars shows this!
>>76570575
He is a catholic, follower of the Pope, not Jesus. He is not a true Christian. Ignore his vitriol.
Ask for faith, and you will receive it. Look into Presbyterianism. Evangelical Presbyterian, not the homosexual-friendly Presbyterians who have sadly lost their way.
>>76570843
Explain ALL the citations from the Fathers I had used alongside the academic sources I cited.
Oh wait, you can't and have to resort to revisionist history!
>>76570888
So you've seen the documemtary beforehand then?
CALVINISTS BELIEVE THAT GOD MIND CONTROLS EVERYONE!!
>>76570780
>If your position is valid, I expect to find it in all ages consistently!
non-sequitur.
Your vitriol and stupidity is astounding, m8.
>>76570987
I have seen some of his shitty articles which misrepresented JND Kelly for example!
Kelly makes clear how it is stupid to actually inquire on which authority that is Scripture and Tradition is to be higher or superior!
>>76570783
I'm convinced there's a good percentage of Catholics who have no fucking idea what they're even doing in Church.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation
>>76570484
>>76570856
I actually really appreciate your guy's concern.
I haven't looked into Catholicism yet --I don't know how I would handle every body hating me.
It wouldn't go over well with my friends, classmates or family. I'd be fucked.
Thanks again though.
>>76571089
So you've seen the documentary beforehand then?
>>76571071
This is a theological truth and I expect evidence for it throughout every age in Christianity.
NO ONE can give me any through unbiased citations and sources.
Look at how a shitty apologist is used as a source by the Aussie Calvincuck
>>76571157
The idiot has a blog about it.
Now show me academic sources instead of your crapologist just as I had done, alongside the use of the Church Fathers.
>>76571202
Catholics are so angry.
I wonder why!
You don't have true faith.
>>76571202
St Clement and the Early Chruch Fathers are great apologists, I agree.
>>76570900
Please, don't call names. I asked a serious question relating to what religion I should follow.
Thanks, why should I look into Presbyterianism though? If I had the time to look through all the denominations I would.
>>76571288
The sources are in the documentary.
>>76571105
>I haven't looked into Catholicism yet --I don't know how I would handle every body hating me.
>It wouldn't go over well with my friends, classmates or family. I'd be fucked.
Why?
Pray to God for guidance. There is no trick to praying. Just talk to God.
>>76571302
They are Church Fathers who are considered authorities on the subject, particularly on the state of belief at their time
>>76571295
That's you as evidenced by how you can't even answer my arguments or use the same sources I had used against me
>>76571476
You're exactly right, they were authorities on the subject.
>>76571316
You don't look at denominations but from the beginning and then working to which denomination matches that from that beginning.
Start with the essay I had linked to in the OP. It's not an apological source
>>76571316
>don't call names
I didn't, but I certainly could. What I said was right.
>Why?
because it has an intellectual depth, and the believers are real believers, and I believe in the doctrine.
Here's an entrypoint
http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_41.html
>>76571444
>Why?
Dude. Cause everybody fucking hates you guys.
>>76549381
but that was so much fun tho
>>76571378
If you truly watched it, you could easily tell me the argument on any topic of the fathers mentioned ITT rather than "watch le documentary"
This shows how stupid and ignorant you are like sheep
>>76571542
And they aren't Protestants or believe in Calvinistic Predestination, Sola Scriptura and belief in the same view of Luther on the Eucharist, not Calvin.
>>76571633
Why don't you watch it for yourself and see what the Church Fathers said? I took the time out to read your walls of text, return the favour.
>>76571557
You accused him of not being a true Christian.
Please just answer my question and keep your guy's bullshit to yourselves.
>>76571602
More than other Christians?
>>76571721
Okay, I don't agree with Calvin or Luther. Not an argument.
>>76571545
I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble understanding this.
>>76571809
He isn't.
I answered your question.
Anything else, atheist?
>>76571796
You don't even show me how and where I got them wrong loser!
I had already pointed out how he misrepresents JND Kelly in his blog.
>>76571861
He means what the early Christians did.
>>76571861
Read JND Kelly's Early Christian Doctrines for starters.
Read the Bible and keep note of Biblical scholarship or else you end up misreading it.
>>76571905
I don't have to - my source does that for me.
>>76571905
>lol im retarded hur dur omg im so retarded
>>76571811
Maybe it's different in Canada, but I'd lose friends and family if I became Catholic, and assume it's the same for most people not born Catholic.
>>76571857
Show me Sola Scriptura in the Church Fathers using,
a)academic source
b)From the Fathers themselves IN CONTEXT
>>76572043
People haven't been becoming Catholic for 500 years except through invasion or coercion. True Christians have been leaving the Catholic Church for 500 years. Don't be misled.
>>76572003
You can't even tell me the arguments your stupid apologist raised.
This shows how ignorant you are
>>76572063
As I said, it's in the video: watch the section regarding Scripture and Tradition.
>>76572033
You believe that God is a deceiver and claim he isn't. THat's retarded
>>76572043
Do you live in the south?
I didn't even feel that comfortable showing my faith at my high school which is Catholic ( I've since graduated)
>>76572152
Why would I give you the link if I didn't know what was in it?
