Be me, prot bot

if Catholicism is true, how come early churches didn't see the bishop of rome as having authority over them and priests weren't required to be celibate? this isn't even taking into account how doctrine changed and along with it who was considered a "heretic".

Explain this

Romanism has no basis in scripture nor the fathers

The Bible says faith without works is dead. It says that I must have faith. And I am akin to an athlete running for God. Yet, if Sola Fide is true, these would be meaningless as such entails that I already won, that I have no activity at all given "faith" as simply the alien righteousness, deeds and benefits of Christ put in me.

Uhh am I arguing for Catholicism here? This is a red herring. My thesis is Protestantism opposes the Bible and the Early Christians.

Here is Justin Martyr on Free will,

But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain. We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions.

Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritorious nor the latter to be blamed. And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be. But that it is by free choice they both walk uprightly and stumble, we thus demonstrate. We see the same man making a transition to opposite things.

(1/2)

Now, if it had been fated that he were to be either good or bad, he could never have been capable of both the opposites, nor of so many transitions. But not even would some be good and others bad, since we thus make fate the cause of evil, and exhibit her as acting in opposition to herself; or that which has been already stated would seem to be true, that neither virtue nor vice is anything, but that things are only reckoned good or evil by opinion; which, as the true word shows, is the greatest impiety and wickedness. But this we assert is inevitable fate, that they who choose the good have worthy rewards, and they who choose the opposite have their merited awards.

For not like other things, as trees and quadrupeds, which cannot act by choice, did God make man: for neither would he be worthy of reward or praise did he not of himself choose the good, but were created for this end; nor, if he were evil, would he be worthy of punishment, not being evil of himself, but being able to be nothing else than what he was made.

Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., & Coxe, A. C. (1997). The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol.I : Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325 (177).

(2/2)

These immediately opposes Sola Fide as human actions are now judged by God and are in fact rewarded by God. Sola Fide rejects this as such imply that works which is done by human free will can factor into Salvation.

But Sola Fide sees works as EVIDENCE of God's saving work and Salvation, not contributing to any judgement of God at all.

fair enough, I'm used to Catholics on this board arguing against Protestantism. I just wanted to point out that it was a hypocritical position

>Chapter 20. Promise of another letter

>If Jesus Christ shall graciously permit me through your prayers, and if it be His will, I shall, in a second little work which I will write to you, make further manifest to you [the nature of] the dispensation of which I have begun [to treat], with respect to the new man, Jesus Christ, in His faith and in His love, in His suffering and in His resurrection. Especially [will I do this ] if the Lord make known to me that you come together man by man in common through grace, individually, in one faith, and in Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David according to the flesh, being both the Son of man and the Son of God, so that you obey the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, but [which causes] that we should live for ever in Jesus Christ.

newadvent.org/fathers/0104.htm

Here a Church Father explicitly calling the Eucharist as the anitode to death and "medicine of immortality". Oops, Protestants cannot even agree on whether the Eucharist has any power of this kind or not.

Faith produces works because if you truly believe something you will act on it.

The works do not save but are a byproduct of salvation.

>that I have no activity at all given "faith" as simply the alien righteousness, deeds and benefits of Christ put in me.

Exactly.

>for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

- Romans 13:14

>For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--

- Ephesians 2:8

>clothed yourselves with Christ.

>this is not from yourselves,

Catholicism is still closer in comparison to Protestantism.

Ephesians talks about the Grace of God that is not of "yourselves", not faith. "Grace" is the power that enables Salvation. The problem? Every side of the divide believes this.

But either way once one sees faith as Kierkegaard do or as one's beliefs and convictions, then one naturally have to reject Sola Fide or what is defined as by the Reformers which does not allow room for this.

You honestly think Catholicism is closer to the Bible and the "Early Christians"?

>CatholiCucks literally LITERALLY pray to Mary instead of God
>CatholiCucks literally LITERALLY are idolators since they worship statues and idols of Mary
>CatholiCucks literally LITERALLY believe confessing their sins to a pedo Priest will mean God FORGIVES their sin --- sorry God, You MUST forgive me for chocking that bitch to death because I feel ever so sorry now
lmao @ ur religion

Is should be noted that none of the verses you cited actually imply or state that works are a byproduct of Salvation. In fact what I had described as "faith" is incompatible with Sola Fide. There is a reason why it is monergistic and why even the Bible makes so clear your need for works.

If "faith" is as you define, James' warning and insistence on faith being shown by works to be pointless. Because he is essentially talking to reprobates who are not saved at all and thus cannot do any works. Works that matter that is. Your logic of twisting Ephesians also entail that human beings are incapable of free will hence God needing to alter the individual's mental states to have faith. This is no longer assent or willing belief, but mind control.

One receives grace through faith, see the pic above.

>BELIEVE in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, you will be SAVED.

I had cited examples of Early Christians disagreeing with Protestantism ITT

Justin Martyr says God judges human beings based on their own actions. That good actions will be rewarded. This is incompatible with Sola Fide.

Ignatius sees the Eucharistic elements as "medicine of immortality". This contradicts Protestants that deny a realist view of the Eucharist.

Catholicism accepts that God rewards good actions. This in the context of Salvation however is action done in Grace.

Catholicism's view of the Eucharist also drives closer to Ignatius, alongside the Lutherans. What is different is no metaphysical explanation is given to explain how the bread becomes or is this medicine of immortality.

This is not a refutation of my argument. In fact I can simply call what I just argued for, Sola Fide. That is all works stem from one's faith, an active faith where the individual struggles and acts in accordance to his/her convictions.

But if this is what faith is and how it plays out, it is not what Protestants believe in.

Polycarp 13:2
But when the pile was made ready, divesting himself of all his upper garments and loosing his girdle, he endeavored also to take off his shoes, though not in the habit of doing this before, because all the faithful at all times vied eagerly who should soonest touch his flesh. For he had been treated with all honor for his holy life even before his gray hairs came.

Polycarp 17:1
But the jealous and envious Evil One, the adversary of the family of the righteous, having seen the greatness of his martyrdom and his blameless life from the beginning, and how he was crowned with the crown of immortality and had won a reward which none could gainsay, managed that not even his poor body should be taken away by us, although many desired to do this and to touch his holy flesh.

Polycarp 17:2
So he put forward Nicetes, the father of Herod and brother of Alce, to plead with the magistrate not to give up his body, 'lest,' so it was said, 'they should abandon the crucified one and begin to worship this man'--this being done at the instigation and urgent entreaty of the Jews, who also watched when we were about to take it from the fire, not knowing that it will be impossible for us either to forsake at any time the Christ who suffered for the salvation of the whole world of those that are saved--suffered though faultless for sinners--nor to worship any other.

earlychristianwritings.com/text/martyrdompolycarp-lightfoot.html

This also opposes Protestantism as it depicts veneration of martyrs beyond what it permits.

>treating "early Christianity" as a monolith instead of a collection of many different ideas
>treating "early Christianity" and the Cathodox church as synonyms
>using a term like church father that inherently has a Cathodox selection bias, as important early Christians who disagreed with them were demonized and excluded as fathers

So we can therefore treat the Gnostics and Docetists or even Marcion as valid Christians.

The verses I cited show that salvation is a product of grace (i.e. it cannot be EARNED).

A Christian does good works because Christ's spirit is alive in them and working through them. However their salvation has already been achieved through faith and the works follow as a result.

Yes, that's exactly right, in the context of the development of the religion(s).

Every side of the divide believes that Salvation is the product of Grace.

You also essentially agreed with my assessment of the Protestant Sola Fide. But this is in contradiction with Justin Martyr and the Early Christians or even the Bible.

If Salvation is already achieved, then any notion of "working out salvation in fear and trembling" or the metaphor of the athlete of God would be pointless as the individual is already saved forever and all he does is the result of God essentially twisting the mental states of the individual to be that way.

So we simply get a notion of Faith which is essentially foreign to the Bible, in contradiction with the Early Christians and one which essentially leads to Calvinism by logical implication which opens even more problems

Even within such context, it is recognized that there is a single "orthodox" sect that existed alongside the heterodox ones. There is a reason why vocab like "orthodox" and "heterodox" exist

it may be closer, but it isn't the same. that's like comparing mainline protestants to mormons in order to show that protestantism is legitimate

Yea, studying renaissance italian religion and society atm. I despise the catholic church more every day

Correct, Protestantism is like mormonism. It adds new contradictory things to Christianity.

So when I say Catholicism is closer, it means it actually does this less and is more in line with what the Early Christians and the Bible teaches. Essentially making them both as by conclusion, illegitimate

But the very people whom you quote as if bearing authority were only given said grandiose authority from the Catholic church much later in history. Everyone who didn't line up with the later Church's teaching were "heretics" and their ideas, still a part of "Early Christianity" were never preserved or maintained in the same way.

"valid" depends on your viewpoint religiously, but yes, they should be categorized as being among the many different types of early christianity

Studying the Bible and Christian history atm, I despise Protestantism more every day

>Council
>Of
>Nicaea

>There is a reason why vocab like "orthodox" and "heterodox" exist
Yes, politics. Arianism, what Nestorius actually preached, and so on were not "heresies" or heterodox until the Cathodox church gained enough power to declare them so, rather than the previous situation of differing ideas being in competition with one another.

The single orthodox sect idea is an illusion created for the purpose of legitimizing the churches. It's similar to how both the Orthodox and the Catholics claim that they preserved the true faith, and the other church broke off from them. It's just politics.

Good. Except this also now goes back to the Bible itself. The Gospel of John is known to be anti Docetist and is seen to make statements specifically to counter such.

These are terms applied to history from a later perspective. What was "orthodox" was decided in the Ecumenical Councils covering a 325 year period. Furthermore, these councils took place some three centuries after Christ.

Athletes train because they love their sport.

Christians do good works because we love what is good.

Both the athlete training and the Christian performing good works are exterior manifestations of their internal essence.

All humans are born dead in their sins and it is only through the saving power of the Holy Spirit that our sinful essence (what Paul calls the "old man") is transformed into
the image of Christ. The good works a Christian performs are external evidence that this internal transformation has occurred but again, salvation has already been achieved.

No. Such "heresy" logic goes way back. The only difference is that secular politics is to be drawn in when the Roman Empire became more Christian. A logic of a varied Christianity without a single sect or body of it that is continuous invalidates all Christian traditions.

But what we do know makes clear that such is not the case. Arianism for example is seen as heretical even before Nicaea. Many Church Fathers before then affirm the deity of Christ. This is why Larry Hurtado classifies the Bible and the Early Christians as having a Binitarian tendency where Jesus and God the Father are emphasized and worshiped. A similar thought is seen in Justin and Irenaeus

blessed are the poor, for they will inherit the kingdom of heaven

there is a shitload of quotes about the higher position of the bishop of rome with regards to the rest of the church in the first millenium. The orthodox argue on what it meant, but they dont deny the Bishop of Rome was at least a Primus inter Pares.

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized AT ROME by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. FOR WITH THIS CHURCH, BECAUSE OF ITS SUPERIOR ORIGIN [or "preeminent authority"] ALL CHURCHES MUST AGREE, THAT IS, ALL THE FAITHFUL IN THE WHOLE WORLD; AND IT IS IN HER THAT THE FAITHFUL EVERYWHERE HAVE MAINTAINED THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION." [then follows a list of successors to Peter as bishops of Rome] (Against Heresies 3:3:1-3)

ST. IRENAEUS OF LYON (c. 180-199 AD)

priests being celibate is something that can be undone. it is just a low that was put around the year 1000 and can be removed.
anglican priests who convert to catholicism work as married priests, and oriental churches in communion with rome like those of Ukrayne, have married priests.

In the eastern orthodox church priests can be married, but bishops cant, they are generally monks.

And based on what we can piece together from the Bible and writings we know of.

Athletes are not passive. They act of their own volition. Because they are imperfect, they train towards perfection.

By the Bible's logic, you also have to do this as an athlete of Christ. What is given will and has saved the Christian. And the Christian now live a life in imitation of Christ.

But this entails the Christian as not being passive but active. Such entails not monergism as Sola Fide preaches but Synergism. Paul also says that we respond to Grace BY Faith, a freely given Grace. This would necessarily entail that one must make decisions and choices. Once one makes this choice, he is obligated to stand by the teachings of God and follow him as his new master. Again Synergistic logic, not monergistic. Such also entails that work isn't done as "salvation evidence" but as a demonstration of the faith professed and the goal of becoming more Christ-like.

>Such "heresy" logic goes way back.
Perhaps I should clarify. Obviously all sects would consider themselves to be correct and opposing sects to be incorrect, and the be incorrect in a religious context is to be heretical. But it is only after the Cathodox church managed to legitimize itself as "Christianity" that the impression that the other churches were objectively heretical from an external viewpoint could emerge.

>Many Church Fathers before then affirm the deity of Christ
Again, Church Father is a term loaded with Cathodox selection bias. Why, for example, is Nestorius not considered a Church Father but a heretic? Because he fell out of favor with the ruling authorities. Thus, those considered Church Fathers are those who affirmed what eventually became Cathodox dogma.

The sanctification process of becoming more Christ-like is an entirely separate issue from salvation.

The thief on the cross did not have an opportunity to do good works but is with Christ in paradise because he believed.

The absurdity of a works based salvation is exposed once and for all by that faithful thief.

If you take that view, then go ahead. Because even what we now know as the New Testament originated from Oral Tradition(i.e Gospels) or out of Pastoral needs. So you can say that there are heterodox groups alongside the group that eventually written down what the NT is.

Nestorius fell out of favor due to differences in theological opinion that emerged. There are points in Christian history where the heretical opinion is supported by the authorities. See the Monothelite controversy for example. That is essentially Chalcedon the Sequel but with the authorities now flipped against the orthodox side.

Actually no if one acknowledges and sees Faith as the Bible and the Fathers see it and not as the Reformers do. After all if faith is of individual volition and involves an active person, then all action that flow from it will be important to Salvation, which is also why Paul makes clear that one must walk in the spirit and hold fast to the liberty given to them. It is why when there were those that disparage the Eucharist, he went in and warned against such acts.

The Thief on the Cross contrary to Protestantism's claims did in fact do one thing. He rebuked the other thief for mocking Jesus. So even the thief in great pain had shown his beliefs and stood up for it even in the face of pain.

>So you can say that there are heterodox groups alongside the group that eventually written down what the NT is.
It would be more accurate to say that terr was a plurality of documents within all the early churches, and certain documents were later compiled into what we now call "The" New Testament. BUT that "The" is misleading in the same way that referring to the Cathodox as "The" Early Church is misleading.

>differences in theological opinion that emerged
So, in other words, a particular historical figure could be declared a church father or not depending on their theological positions. In which case, it's no wonder that "the church fathers" affirm Cathodox positions, as that was the selection criteria.

>There are points in Christian history where the heretical opinion is supported by the authorities
Yes, because it is only after the fact that there becomes the orthodox and the heterodox positions. Of course there are events like these, because the line between heresy and orthodoxy is often much thinner and arbitrary than churches care to admit.

Calvin wasn't the only reformer.

Arminians acknowledge the role individual volition plays in salvation because we must choose to believe. God is not a tyrant and therefore we must allow Him to save us.

>So even the thief in great pain had shown his beliefs

And those beliefs saved him, not the rebuke.

Arminians came later. Arminus is not even considered a Reformer. Reformers are figures like Calvin, Luther, Zwlingli for example. All Reformers essentially agree that you have no free will in Salvation, except for Philip whose views are to be denied by the Lutherans.

Also, nowhere in the narrative of the repentant thief did we see Jesus say that his "sola fide" saved him. But even then, saying "his beliefs saved him" doesn't even rebuke my point. My point is that human beings are free creatures and thus if they are free creatures, then when they have faith, they are also active in doing any works that follow, essentially breaking what the Reformers mean by Sola Fide.

But here's the thing, Arminians disavow Sola Fide due to the mere fact that by enabling humans to make the choice in Salvation, they are meriting it in a way and they are doing something which contributes to it. That opposes Sola Fide which says that ALL is by the merit of Christ, so choice does not even matter. But if the latter is true then it also means predestination as the conclusion

>Tfw the only saint recognized by Jesus and the Bible is the thief

Hey be my guest. The sect of the Church Fathers are the ones who literally affirmed most of it anyways. The whole Canon issue only involved a small set of books rather than the main.

But yeah, essentially to be a Church Father you have to affirm a set criteria. And not everyone can have it. But if this is so then there is a sect of the plurality of sects that will eventually become what the church of Nicaea is and what will eventually become Catholicism and Orthodoxy. If there are no selection criteria, there is really no way of even establishing starting points on what is and is not Christianity.

If you want to say that the line between heresy and orthodoxy is "thin", I would agree which is why arguments on the issue can be complex and confusing at times.

>pls be a girl

Actually a "saint" is defined as someone who is in heaven. The Bible sees saints as believers.

But, generally the whole cultus of saints that is to come later have precedents in the veneration of martyrs and the Jewish practice of venerating OT patriarchs(this is actually a thing especially around Palestine). Ideas for this cultus exist in Revelations for example.

>The whole Canon issue only involved a small set of books rather than the main.
Not at all. There were a great many gospels and writings that existed at the time, and a political process determined which would be considered canonical or not. The deuterocanon is an entirely separate issue from, for example, the Gospel of Thomas is not canon.

>But yeah, essentially to be a Church Father you have to affirm a set criteria
And there's the rub. The Catholic and Orthodox position is essentially "these criteria are correct, as evidence I present this group, whose membership is predicated on whether or not they agree with my criteria." Using "the church fathers" as evidence to claim that your sect represents "early Christianity" is a very circular argument.

>But if this is so then there is a sect of the plurality
Not necessarily even one, but potentially miniature mergers and schisms even before the big ones often acknowledged. Church history is much messier than "from the beginning, one orthodox sect and a bunch of heresies."

It's weird to me how penitent thief is the only guy in the whole New Testament to my knowledge who is explicitly said to enter into Heaven, and isn't officially canonized into the Catholic saint cult. The man seemed pretty based.

This is no longer a discussion but you claiming authority to define the beliefs that you're arguing against and then arguing against your own definitions.

Clearly I am no longer necessary, however one last thing before I go:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Protestant_Reformers#A

Fourth from the bottom.

I will be praying for you.

Deuterocanon is to varying degrees considered canon(though by the Church Fathers). Of course there are many gospels. But most of these seems to have its origins in the second century. The Gospels are widely accepted to be from the 1st century. Even if they are somehow 2nd century documents, a sect that affirms their contents would already exist as testified by Clement of Rome, the Didache and Ignatius.

Now whether or not the Church Fathers are representatives of what Christianity is depends on how you want to see it. So you do you. But you still need a starting point somewhere. For me at least at most the Cathodox claim will simply show them as heirs of one of many sects that existed from a purely historic viewpoint.

Church history is messy, I won't deny that. But I think the evidence does support one orthodox sect and a bunch of heterodox ones, but whether this is true depends on how you define orthodox.

please answer the most important question: Are you a girl?

He is. He is called St Dismas

I am not. So Arminus is a Reformer. Which one is right? Even Luther and Calvin differ on how Sola Fide works out

I don't believe St. thief man was ever officially canonized by the church. He's a very popular folk saint.

I don't like to link to religious pages but here's one

google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjn26vU9YPQAhXJL8AKHVovCrkQFgg2MAM&url=http://catholicsaints.info/saint-dismas/&usg=AFQjCNFZuediHHzdzir00dwCCgf4HiWzHw

>Catholics STILL haven't recovered

another thread ruined by malaysiaautist

REEEEEEEEEEFORMATION

Reminder that anglicanism is the only good denomination.

bump

I get the angel thing being a reference to the Nephilim but what is the Mary clone a reference to?

how?

Mary Magalene?

Mixes the best of catholicism with the best of the reforms.

Isis, Ishtar, Semiramis, Asherah, Cybele etc. . .

(((pure coincidence)))

JUST

isn't it full of sjws and lesbian priests?

I don't know, my church is pretty conservative.

Not at the APCK.

anglicanpck.org/index.shtml

Yes

No.

OFFICIAL Protestant Power Rankings
>Godly Tier
Anglicans, Episcopal, Congregational
>Autistic but tolerable Tier
Lutherans, Calvinists, Presbyterian, Methodists, Quakers, The Amish
>Amicable backwater hick Tier
Baptists, Pentecostal
>Get off my lawn you autist if that wasn't scripture I'd dump your books Tier
Jehovah's Witness, Christian Scientist, Mormonism, Jews for Jesus, Born-again evangelicals
>Keep your politics out of Religion you assholes Tier
United Church of Christ, Unitarian Universalists, Intervarsity student groups, Nondenominational churches
>Interesting when it's not around me Tier
Eastern Lightning, Voodoo, No-church, most NRMs

I can dig it.

High bank & love, are You being taken by the corporation love?

Sola Scriptura btfo

NOW YOU INVOKE ME
I ARRIVE FUCK PRODDIE

>Episcopalians
>Godly Tier

Mind your language please.

>Church of England minus the England
>Members are usually more educated and wealthy than other religious groups
>Led by melanin enriched gentleman
>not based

not the shouting cathocuck. we already showed what was wrong with Protestantism and Catholicism

no

Here PRODDIE refuted

I believe you fall into the Autistic but tolerable Tier

How can proddies recover

Proddies are all autistix

Explain this

are you jewish?

be honest pls

How can PRODDIE RECOVER

PLS EXPLAIN TO ME

I WANT TO KNOW

did you forget your meds again