Daily Reminder:
>The bodily ascension to heaven of Mary is unbiblical
>"Immaculate conception/heart" of Mary is unbiblical
>Perpetual virginity of Mary is unbiblical
>Praying to the mother of Jesus so she can intercede between us and him so Jesus can intercede between us and the Father is unbiblical
T. Former catholic
Other urls found in this thread:
catholic.com
catholic.com
catholic.com
presbyterianreformed.org
reformedpresbyterian.org
opc.org
youtube.com
mostholyfamilymonastery.com
vatican.va
twitter.com
...
>implying fedora
Nope, Christian all the way
>The bodily ascension to heaven of Mary is unbiblical
I've never heard anybody say that Mary ascended. Do Catholics actually believe that?
did you pray today user?
Yes, being born and raised in a Catholic family and studying in catholic elementary and middle school they sure did teach those things, along with prayers to saints and angels
Every single day my negro, only to God though
They call it a bodily assumption, but yes
>Not by repentance of sins
This image is heretical. Delet this
>Yes, being born and raised in a Catholic family and studying in catholic elementary and middle school they sure did teach those things along with prayers to saints and angels
I've had Catholics explain shit like praying to saints and angels in a way that, while I still disagree with, seemed kinda reasonable, but I don't understand how any of them could believe in something like Mary ascending to heaven when, to my knowledge she isn't mentioned again in the Bible after the Gospels.
Fanfiction shit like that is the reason I'm an atheist now. There's no way that, in this religion that's been around so long and retranslated so many times that it isn't filled to the brim with noncanonical ideals and fanfiction. With nothing other than "faith" to help me determine what's accurate and what's not, I'd rather just not even bother.
Repentance comes after recognition of Jesus Christ as lord and savior, you can't repent if you don't think that you're wrong and need saving. either way salvation is not granted by any works whatsoever but by God's divine mercy
>Repentance comes after recognition of Jesus Christ as lord and savior, you can't repent if you don't think that you're wrong and need saving
Faith isn't "recognition". You can't trust Christ with your soul if you don't want Him to save you from your sins.
Our religion has an objective standard, the bible. No fanfiction in their. If you get your faith from that then your religion will be divine indeed.
I'd recomend you ditch the atheism and begin to search for God (christian God, of course) because denying his existence only attracts evil and sorrow into your life, even agnosticism is better than outright denying God because one religion decieved you and others
I speak from experience, as distanced as I became with catholicism, I never went full fedora to deny the existence of God or his influence in everything, just this year I fully recieved Christ in my heart and life has never been the same, the supernatural/spiritual realm is real, but discering what's real from false doctrine can be a real challenge, specially for those unfamiliar/not fond of religion
>to my knowledge she isn't mentioned again in the Bible after the Gospels
The Bible is not just some self-contained story that contains all of the information the author(s) wanted you to know. It is a historical account of things that actually took place. As such, there were things that happened that are not in the scriptures, and what the people talked about inside actually went and did after the Gospels end isn't any less real because it's not in the Bible.
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." - 2 Thessalonians 2:15
Here, we are told to hold the traditions that we have been taught, either by word (of mouth), or epistle (letters, as in the scriptures). From this we see that the writers of the New Testament did not mean, in the slightest, that we were ONLY to get our information from the scriptures, and were also supposed to look to traditions handed down by word of mouth.
And according to the story we are given through the apostolic tradition, dating all the way back to the first century AD, Mary went into a lifeless sleep (dormition) before her body was lifted into Heaven.
>Our religion has an objective standard, the bible. No fanfiction
How do you know that for sure though? Like I said, the stories have been around since before recorded history, and when recorded history did become a thing, the languages that these centuries (perhaps even millennia) old oral traditions were taken down in haven't been dead for years. Then, over the following millennia, they were translated into other dead languages by hand, by God only knows who (pun not really intended). Not to mention events like the Council of Nicea where the Church got together to decide which stories were canon, got rid of a bunch of the shit that was too crazy even for them, and the fact that there are supposedly secret books and documents in the Vatican Archives that nobody but those at the highest levels will even have a chance to view.
>I'd recomend you ditch the atheism and begin to search for God (christian God, of course) because denying his existence only attracts evil and sorrow into your life
Bro, did you notice I said "now" when I mentioned being an atheist? I was a devout and practicing Christian for year and it was only through rigorous study of the Bible and its history that I came to the conclusion that it's not anymore valid than any other religion. The sorrow in my life, like everything else, comes from a place that can be explained with secular logic, and no pretentious saying about how I'm ignorant for not having faith is going to change that.
>Council of Nicaea
>deciding the canon of the NT
No, that is Da Vinci Code lies and conspiracy theory garbage.
The Council of Nicaea was a response to the heresy of Arianism and led to the formation of the Nicene Creed - which is an affirmation of the Trinity not found in the Gospels. It is an example of a tradition passed down by word of mouth that is central to the faith, and isn't found in the scriptures.
>The Bible is not just some self-contained story that contains all of the information the author(s)
How would you respond to and his claim that the Bible is the objective standard?
>Here, we are told to hold the traditions that we have been taught, either by word (of mouth), or epistle (letters, as in the scriptures)
While I appreciate your attempt to explain Scripture to me in as simple a manner as possible, it really isn't necessary when the verse you're quoting is as concise as that. I really do appreciate though, and wish that other Christians would do it more often, rather than just spouting out pretentious jargon and pretending it answers direct questions in any meaningful way.
> according to the story we are given through the apostolic tradition, dating all the way back to the first century AD, Mary went into a lifeless sleep (dormition) before her body was lifted into Heaven.
This is interesting and I'd never heard of it before. Thank you for telling me about it.
>No, that is Da Vinci Code lies and conspiracy theory garbage.
So when was the Gospel of St Thomas officially declared noncanonical?
>How do you know that for sure though?
It's God's word
>Not to mention events like the Council of Nicea where the Church got together to decide which stories were canon, got rid of a bunch of the shit that was too crazy even for them
That didn't happen, it's a myth
thx op for the message
That's not the way the canon developed. The bible wasn't formed by formal pronouncements
>the Trinity not found in the Gospels
Blasphemous slander
>This is interesting and I'd never heard of it before
I'm afraid it's also completely false. The bodily assumption of Mary is a pure myth that infected Christianity from influence from Gnosticism. The earliest mention of it from any source is from about 500 AD. The papists defend their myths and inventions by falsely claiming they were passed down by mouth, and when challenged on this the truth comes out, that this is known because the pope said it was so.
Revelation 12:1 is a vision of the Virgin Mary in Heaven.
“And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun . . . she was with child . . . and . . . brought forth a male child [Jesus], one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron” (Rev 12:1-5).
Who was the woman who gave birth to Jesus? Mary.
John sees Mary in heaven.
Mary was taken up into heaven, like Elijah (2 Kings 2:11) and Enoch (Genesis 5:24; Hebrews 11:5).
>It's God's word
How have you missed my entire point being that I can't be sure if it's God's word when there's a long history of it being edited, translated, or otherwise fucked with by fallible men?
Then see . Shit like the Gospel of Thomas and everything that makes up the Apocrypha was declared noncanonical at some point. Who made those decisions, and how other than faith that God guided them, do we know that they made the correct decisions?
>The bible wasn't formed by formal pronouncements
I'm willing to admit that you and others know more about this subject than I do, but I'm pretty fucking sure that at at least one point in history a council of some kind was formed to consolidate all the different stories regarding Jesus into one coherent canon. If I'm completely wrong, would you mind taking the time to explain to me how something like the Gospel of Thomas and other Apocrypha were left out of the Bible by whomever decided to compile it?
Also wouldn't the fact that you guys, I assume both practicing Christians who both appear to be educated and well informed on the subject, disagree with each other as well as other greater doctrinal conflicts kinda prove my point? How can I trust that anything in Scripture can be taken seriously if we can't agree on shit like Mary's divinity or ascension?
>John sees Mary in heaven.
Aren't we all supposed to go to Heaven when we die? John having a prophetic vision of Mary being there, doesn't necessarily suggest that she ascended like Elijah.
No amount of evidence and coherent text will get through your hardened heart, from your testimony I can tell you were never even truly saved in the first place, you only went through the motions of christianity for the sake of good feels in your life but not through God's mercy and calling
Faith in God comes first, then salvation through the acceptance of Jesus Christ, then a life of grace with the Holy Spirit dwelling within you
>B-b-but where's the proof?!
Some stuff you just cant prove, you just gotta believe and experience God's workings in your life as a result
Jhon 20:29 KJV
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
have a nice wallpaper for your troubles
That's a fair point. It's not a conclusive argument.
The argument is developed with greater historical and biblical detail here, although it remains a probabilistic, inductive sort of argument: catholic.com
>Aren't we all supposed to go to Heaven when we die?
No.
We are supposed to go to haven after the second coming. Until then, we lay in grave.
But not Mary. She is already risen, because she is without sin, and God has already judged her on earth when he made her the Mother of Christ.
>there's a long history of it being edited
It has never been edited.
>translated
Why is this a bad thing? It's not like we're without the Greek and Hebrew
>I'm pretty fucking sure that at at least one point in history a council of some kind was formed to consolidate all the different stories regarding Jesus into one coherent canon
There was indeed formal pronouncements of biblical canon, but their intention was to codify what was already received, not to determine. There are theologians before these pronouncements, such as Tertullian and Irenaeus, and they do not call any account of the life Jesus scripture except those according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
>If I'm completely wrong, would you mind taking the time to explain to me how something like the Gospel of Thomas and other Apocrypha were left out of the Bible by whomever decided to compile it?
We must start in the time of the writing of the New Testament. People rarely realize that books were canonized before the full canon was written. Paul quotes the Gospel of Luke and calls it scripture. These books were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and so they carried with them marks by which a thing is known in itself, so that no external evidence is required to verify it, such as how a man knows he is looking at light merely by looking at it. When He opens the eyes of men, He also opens their eyes to see these marks, as Jesus said, "the sheep follow him, for they know his voice".
Because of this, the men of God knew what books were from God. But while these same means are used for every Christian, a third mean was introduced by time, that being tradition (things passed down). The men who already knew these books were divine, when delivering them to other men, also told them of their nature. The spurious books lacked all three of these, and so were rejected (though not all universally).
>How can I trust that anything in Scripture can be taken seriously if we can't agree on shit like Mary's divinity or ascension?
He believes those things because his "church" told him to, not because he found it in scripture. In fact, it is Catholic tradition that the bible is unclear, so they believe they can't understand anything the bible says unless some infallible bishop tells them what to believe it means. But in the case of similar conflicts between those who all actually believe the bible, the answer is that sin causes even Christians to only believe the parts of the bible they like.
That isn't a vision of Mary in heaven, it's an allegory of the people of God from old covenant through the birth of Christ to the new covenant. This comes out pretty clearly when you read the entire chapter, but what is most clear is that it is not a literal account of Mary.
>will get through your hardened heart
Ironic that you'd use that phrase considering its first use was God forcing a dude's heart harden. Wouldn't that just suggest that my lack of belief now is God's will?
> I can tell you were never even truly saved in the first place, you only went through the motions of christianity for the sake of good feels in your life but not through God's mercy and calling
And I can tell by your pretentious use of language and judgement of my piety that you're not as Christlike as you think you are or claim to be.
>Some stuff you just cant prove, you just gotta believe and experience God's workings in your life as a result
Well, I thought I did that but according to you it just wasn't good enough. How convenient that my inability to experience God's workings is automatically my fault and couldn't possibly suggest that you might be the one who's wrong.
I'll bite though. If everything I was doing before wasn't real Christianity. How am I supposed to do it? How do I accept Christ into my heart the way you apparently have?
and like any good protestant you've started to shriek on catholics.
not surprising, since that's the central reason protestants exist in the first place.
you know what is biblical?
the serpent attempting at the heel of the woman.
Religion - No matter how thin you slice it, It's still baloney.
>How do I accept Christ into my heart
God created everything that exists. That makes you a creature of God. You are in covenant with God as the image of God, and you have broken that covenant. For that reason, you deserve death and hell. But the Son of God became man that men may become sons of God, and He suffered all the wrath which God has for men. If you repent of your sins, and place your faith in Jesus Christ to save you, you will be saved. He is a perfect savior, and He will never lose anyone who comes to Him in earnest repentance and faith.
>It has never been edited.
But again, how can we be sure of that other than faith? Also, wouldn't the fact that there are multiple different versions, suggest that there has been editing?
>Why is this a bad thing?
People homed in on my erroneous reference to the Council of Nicea in that one post, and seemed to miss what I said about translation. That is, that doing it by hand, in such ancient times by guys that we don't know and therefore are unsure of how well they knew the language they were translating from, leaves a lot of room for error. Have you ever tried to translate a book? It's difficult and tedious with modern tools and the internet.
Thanks for taking the time to explain all of the rest to me. I appreciate the clarity and simplicity.
> in the case of similar conflicts between those who all actually believe the bible, the answer is that sin causes even Christians to only believe the parts of the bible they like.
Makes sense I suppose.
Thanks again, but that question was really only directed at the guy I was asking, since he was so sure that my belief was never sincere enough.
>How do you obtain salvation?
>Not by repentance of sins
Isaiah 30:15 - “In repentance and rest is your salvation"
Luke 5:32 - "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."
Luke 15:7 - "I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent."
Acts 11:18 - "And when they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then to the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto life."
Stop preaching heresy. Yes, you must believe in Christ to achieve salvation. But that is not the only thing you need to do. To "believe" in Christ while being an unrepentant sinner is sheer hypocrisy, and at that point you really don't believe in Him at all.
1 John 2: My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. But if anyone obeys his word, love for God is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.
>How can I trust that anything in Scripture can be taken seriously if we can't agree on shit like Mary's divinity or ascension?
To be fair, you can't absolutely *prove* the doctrine of the Assumption from Scripture; I accept the argument on the basis of my (I believe) reasonable faith in the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, as invested in it by Jesus Christ when He walked the earth (see: catholic.com
That said, in my opinion, your intuition that disagreements on the the meaning of Scripture among different Christians can lead to doubt as to the truth of Christianity generally is a sound and reasonable intuition.
Christ alludes, or even perhaps expressly addresses this in His Last Supper discourse in John:
>I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, THAT ALL OF THEM MAY BE ONE, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us **SO THAT THE WORLD MAY BELIEVE THAT YOU HAVE SENT ME.**.
-John 17:20-21
The authority of the Church's witness to the divinity of Christ is diminished and diluted by disputes among Christians as to the meaning of particular texts or the relevance of certain doctrines.
Such disputes are no small matter in light of Christ's words, as he seems to rest the entire mission of the Church on the necessity of unity among Christ's followers:
>The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, **THAT THEY MAY BE PERFECTED IN UNITY**, SO THAT THE WORLD MAY KNOW THAT YOU HAVE SENT ME.
- John 17:22-23
>and like any good protestant you've started to shriek on catholics.
If I thought my version of Christianity was the right one, but a bunch of dicks pretentiously chanting in Latin kept condescending to me because they've been around longer, I'd shriek at them too.
>No amount of evidence and coherent text will get through your hardened heart
Take note, you obnoxious faggot. These guys are proving you wrong.
Although you can't absolutely prove the Assumption, there is a great deal of evidence for it:
(1) The ark of the covenant is in heaven, as seen in the consecutive verses Revelation 11:19, Revelation 12:1:
"Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a severe hailstorm.
"A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head."
(2) Mary is the fulfillment of the type of the ark of the covenant.
i. When David saw the ark he rejoiced and said, "How can the ark of the Lord come to me?" Elizabeth uses almost the same words: "Why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"
ii. When David approached the ark he shouted out and danced and leapt in front of the ark. When Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, approached Elizabeth, John the Baptist leapt in his mother’s womb. Both leapt and danced in the presence of the ark.
iii.The Ark remained in the house of Obed-edom for three months, and Mary remained in the house of Elizabeth for three months.
iv. The place that housed the ark was blessed, and in the short paragraph in Luke, Elizabeth uses the word blessed three times. Her home was certainly blessed by the presence of the ark and the Lord within.
v. When the Old Testament ark arrived—as when Mary arrived—they were both greeted with shouts of joy. The word for the cry of Elizabeth’s greeting is a rare Greek word used in connection with Old Testament liturgical ceremonies that were centered around the ark and worship.
vi. The ark, which had mysteriously disappeared, was found in heaven. Rev
11:19
vii. Likewise Mary, the fulfillment of the type of the ark, is seen in heaven, immediately after the ark is revealed. Rev 12:1.
catholic.com
In short, you must call on the name of Jesus Christ and BELIEVE wholeheartedly that he died for your sins, was buried, and rose again as prophesied to us by the Word of God, which is the Bible, but you seem like the type of guy who looks for intellectual biblical knowledge to point to and say "Ha! But what about this??", and I understand how it feels since I once was like that too before God had mercy on my soul and showed how much darkness was within me living a sinful life and putting effort into denying his existence
I stand by that statement, salvation comes only through genuine faith in Jesus Christ, and as a result, we become new born-again creatures allowing him to work in our hearts, and as our new nature is now aligned with God's, we despise sin and repent from now being able to see how wrong we were
>To "believe" in Christ while being an unrepentant sinner is sheer hypocrisy, and at that point you really don't believe in Him at all.
I agree 100%, there's no true salvation for someone who claims to be saved and lives in unrepentant sin, but faith in God's ability to cleanse us from sin comes first
>posts a whole lot of claims without scriptural evidence and uses an image to spread propaganda emotional hate against the church
this is also bait.
>But again, how can we be sure of that other than faith?
There's no reason to believe against it, but faith is a valid reason to believe it since in epistemology our beliefs are reduced to non-evidential assumptions are their deepest core. We require certain assumptions for reason and evidence to function, ergo there are certain assumptions which do not require reason or evidence to be valid.
>Also, wouldn't the fact that there are multiple different versions, suggest that there has been editing?
There are multiple versions in English, not the original. Text before printing wasn't as rigid as after, so it's inappropriate to think of differences between manuscripts or lines of manuscript transmission as different versions. Though in any given book of the bible we don't have two identical manuscripts, because the manuscripts are so similar, so reliable (in the case of the OT), so old and so numerous (in the case of the NT), we know with certainty that we have all the original readings of those books. So while in the handwritten copies we don't have the original text all in one copy, we do have it in many copies put together.
>That is, that doing it by hand, in such ancient times by guys that we don't know and therefore are unsure of how well they knew the language they were translating from, leaves a lot of room for error.
I still don't understand what you're saying about translations. Do you mean transmission? If that's the case, then the fact it was by hand is unsurprising, and the fact we don't know who the scribes were is irrelevant. In the case of translations, we know exactly what they were translating from, the original languages. The only exception I am aware of was Wycliffe's Bible (then illegal proto-Protestant Middle English bible), which was translated from the Latin since neither Greek nor Hebrew were available in England at the time.
>Thanks for taking the time to explain all of the rest to me. I appreciate the clarity and simplicity.
Happy to help. If you think about going to church again, I recommend one of these two presbyterianreformed.org reformedpresbyterian.org
The reason I say that is because without true faith and thrist for God in your life, all knowledge about God can and will be used against you by Satan to the point of actually denying his existence since you know about him but don't actually know him, which is a pretty sad way to live, based on my experience
>Take note, you obnoxious faggot.
Ooo, scathing. I don't know how you actually feel inside buddy, I can just asume by your sour attitude that you have lots of inner issues as the typical atheist does, if that fact of life seems obnoxious to you then suit yourself, I'm trying to point you to the right direction without attacking you personally, chill
I was Catholic once and for many years without a changed life, I have all the experience and firsthand knowledge to call them out on their shenanningans
>hate against the church
Idolatry is worth hating, yes
>idolatry
Was pic related idolatry became it had statues of angels and other images
I dont think so since they didnt actually pray to the angels and other images, there's nothing wrong with art if that's what you're impliying
The problem begins when people begin to kneel or pray to a cast or statue in hopes of achieving some divine response, even worse when an entire Church institution promotes this heressy
>inb4 it doesnt happen
I've been to catholic churches in latin america and other places, its standard practice
Daily Reminder: The Catholic Priesthood is the largest organized gay pedophile ring on the planet earth. They should not be allowed to exist.
>I don't think so since they didn't actually pray to the angels and other images
The precaution towards religious images which was the attitude of the Christian church and formally declared against iconoclasm in the second council of Nicaea in the 8th century
Teaches that having religious images within the religion of God does not constitute idolatry unless you worship the image itself or the person behind the image as a deity which is condemned by the church.
The sins of a minority of clergy itself does not refute the catholic priesthood which is taught in the New Testament as a gift received from the Holy Spirit from bishops by the laying of hands to minister to the faithful of Christ.
Oh yes it most certainly does refute the catholic priesthood, which is a complete abomination. The entire point and gist of Christ's ministry on earth is that there's no need for a priesthood, there's no need for a 'chosen race' as there's no barrier between God and man.
There is no Christian priesthood in the New Testament, and in the New Testament there is no difference between the offices of presbyter and bishop.
>open Bible
>ctrl+f trinity
>"0 results"
We get the doctrine of the Trinity from tradition, because it is the tradition of the Apostolic ministry (the Catholic Church) that teaches in greater specificity on scriptural truths. So while the Trinity may not be present in name, it is present in doctrine, although not spelled out as clearly as in the Nicene Creed, which is why Arianism happened.
Oh forgot something
>open Bible
>ctrl+f "faith alone"
>"You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." - James 2:24
>"not by faith alone"
Protestantism btfo as always.
>We get the doctrine of the Trinity from tradition
You should probably tell all those early church fathers that, they seemed to have believed we got the trinity from scripture. Keep in mind that the trinity is a historical development. It is novel to see the trinity as a doctrine. In the bible, it is three doctrines, and each one is perfectly clear. These three are 1. There is one God, 2. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are each distinct persons, and 3. Each of the three persons is fully God. The trinity comes from divine revelation, not traditions of men.
>He believes those things because his "church" told him to, not because he found it in scripture.
Thanks for responding for me, but you're talking out of your hatred for the Catholic Church and ignorance of my testimony. I started out as a Baptist, and am a Catholic convert.
Scripture alone is not a scriptural doctrine. 2 Timothy 3:16, often cited to support the doctrine, doesn't say what Protestant apologists often imply it says. It says that scripture is profitable for equipping the man of God unto good works, but it doesn't say that scripture ALONE is profitable to equip the man of God unto good works. In 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Paul tells us that a Christian is supposed to hold fast to traditions that are taught either through scripture or word of mouth, that is handed down through practice and not written.
We aren't completely blind on the oldest of these traditions, and don't have to make up mythology about the early Church like the Protestants do. Read the Didache, which is a how-to guide for Christians in the first century AD. From the very beginning, Christianity was vastly different from what is taught in Protestant traditions - and NONE of the apostles taught sola fide or sola scriptura. Those are doctrines that arose during the Protestant Reformation 1500 years after Christ.
But, it's not like you're willing to accept any of this. Judging by the way you talk about Catholics, you have some kind of deeper hatred for them - which is exactly what I had. It took prayer and charitable witness from concerned Catholics for me to stop hating them.
Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Romans 3:28
8 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
Faith without works is dead, but that doesnt mean that works are a prerequisite for faith, rather than our good works are a result of our faith, as God's grace acts on our lives through the power of the Holy Spirit dwelling within our body, his temple, and helping us live by the law that is written in our hearts.
You have an ahistorical view of what the early Fathers were thinking and saying about the Trinity. And you didn't understand what I was trying to say. Yes, the doctrine of the Trinity is scriptural, John 1 alone is enough to prove that. However, the language which we use to describe how the persons of the Trinity relate to one another (not familial relation, but functional) is derived from the language put into the Nicene Creed. This "creedal" language was not in use beforehand, not even by some of the staunchest defenders of orthodoxy prior to the Council.
Where your big hangup is, is that the traditions of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ are not "traditions of men" - but are traditions that are of God and handed down to us through the Apostolic ministry.
>The earliest mention of it from any source is from about 500 AD.
Considering how unlikely it is for text to survive over a thousand years that's not really damning criticism. Have some perspective, people alive in 500 AD would have had much better access to texts from the relevant time than we would have, and if the idea wasn't BTFO as heretical back then it's pretty silly for us to turn around now and claim that it is, with access to even less information from the era surrounding Christ than they had in 500 AD.
I mean do you have any idea how many texts have been lost over the ages?
>justified by works not faith
The key word is justified; for what measure is your faith if you have no works? Works are a natural product of true faith, but without that faith no amount of works can save you.
Faith alone saves you, and true faith will be justified by the works that you do.
Not complicated.
Works in this context are "works of the law" - that is works of the law of Moses. And the faith they are referring to is not merely an intellectual faith - but a whole faith in one's life.
I can say I believe in Jesus. But if I do not do as Jesus said, if I do not follow those He commissioned to spread His Gospel, then I do not truly have faith in Jesus.
And yes, those places say that you are saved through faith, but they do not say faith alone. The only time faith is singled out unto itself is James 2:24, where he writes that it is NOT by faith alone that you are saved.
"Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ," - 1 Peter 3:21
>baptism now saves you
But wait! I thought faith saved you! Or works! But then again, didn't Jesus save us? So why do we need faith if Jesus did the hard part???
The separation of causes for ones justification is not a part of the Church's historical teaching on justification. To split out the causes of justification and hang on to one, rejecting the others along with those who think the others are important, is a product of Protestantism which came about 1500 years after Christ.
It's like a sculpture. What causes a sculpture? The idea of the sculpture, the sculptor himself, the chisel, or the act of sculpting? If you remove any of those, then the sculpture cannot be caused. Each of those alone are not the cause of the sculpture, but taken together, they cause the sculpture.
The historical Christian teaching of justification is that faith in Christ's work and ministry, at the point of baptism, perfects the works of the sinner making him fit to stand before God.
>STAR CHILD
>There is no Christian priesthood in the New Testament
False. "Priest" is simply a transliteration, or "Englishing" of the word "presbyter." Pic related.
New Testament presbyters were Catholic priests.
Ordained by the laying on of hands. 2 Tim 1:6. Acts 14:23.
The sacrament of the Eucharist was instituted by Christ at the Last Supper. After His Resurrection, He instituted the sacrament of confession:
>And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone's sins, they are forgiven; if you retain anyone's sins, they are retained."
John 20:22-23
>reads "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."
>quotes it and removes the part that condemns his doctrine as heresy, the word "alone" attached to "faith"
>says "Faith alone saves you"
Justification in the theological sense is salvation. Justification and sanctification were, historically, seen as what salvation entails. Only with Protestants like Luther and Calvin do you get this idea that sanctification can exist outside of justification or vice versa.
So no, "justified" isn't the key word in that sentence. Justification is what is being talked about, but what is being said about it? He is saying that you're justified by works and not by faith alone.
You substituted the meaning of justification for vain appearance to other people instead of its true theological meaning in order to flip the meaning of that verse completely upside-down.
>but you're talking out of your hatred for the Catholic Church
I'm talking from observation of practical Catholic epistemology
>I started out as a Baptist, and am a Catholic convert.
You know, this is something I've noticed of you apostates, you're always so prideful. Why should I care that you crossed the tiber? Does it enhance Rome's truth claims? I never feel the need to mention the fact I crossed the tiber going the other way, why do you?
>Scripture alone is not a scriptural doctrine
Yes, it is. The demand for scriptural proof of sola scriptura is itself vain, since sola scriptura is a negative doctrine. It is not a positive statement of what is, but a negative statement of what is not (namely, the infallibility of non-biblical sources and/or inspiration of the same). For this reason, sola scriptura is the default position. The burden of proof is on the Catholic, not the Protestant.
>2 Timothy 3:16, often cited to support the doctrine, doesn't say what Protestant apologists often imply it says
I've never seen any Catholic actually represent the argument. They can't even accurately cite the prooftext. We don't cite 2 Timothy 3:16. We cite 2 Timothy 3:16-17. These two verse prove three central pillars of sola scriptura, which are denied dogmatically by Rome; the self-authority, clarity and sufficiency of scripture. It says that all scripture is "theopneustos", literally, God-breathed. Since the author of scripture is God, scripture carries the authority of God, which is not authenticated in any way by an external authority. Moses did not go running of to a man with a funny hat when he heard the words "EHYEH ASHER EHYEH". Next, it says scripture is profitable for for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness. This could not be so if it were not clear, scripture does not help me one bit in any of these things if I can't know what it says. Finally, it says scripture is given so the man of God would be complete, perfect, sufficient (any of these three being an accurate translation), equipped for every good work. If scripture were insufficient for the aforementioned tasks, this would be false, if I need Roman tradition to teach the doctrines of God, then scripture does not complete me for it, it does not equip me.
>It says that scripture is profitable for equipping the man of God unto good works
And it defines those good works as "teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness".
>but it doesn't say that scripture ALONE is profitable to equip the man of God unto good works
See my above exegesis.
>In 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Paul tells us that a Christian is supposed to hold fast to traditions that are taught either through scripture or word of mouth, that is handed down through practice and not written.
Paul exhorts the Thessalonians to do this, to what he taught them. "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that YOU were taught by US, either by OUR spoken word or by our letter". The Thessalonians were taught by Paul himself. Certainly, we are to hold fast to what the apostles delivered to us, but today we have only their pens, not their mouths. Even if you could prove an apostolic oral tradition, you could not apply this text to it, since it is only of oral teaching by the apostles themselves.
>We aren't completely blind on the oldest of these traditions
I agree. This is how we know the bodily assumption of Mary is a novelty, an innovation of men, it is completely unknown by the early church.
>don't have to make up mythology about the early Church like the Protestants do
This is another strawman. Many modern Protestants make ahistorical mythology, because of influence on them from the Anabaptists. You will never find the reformers themselves endorsing such nonsense as Constantine conquering the Church, indeed, they saw themselves as the true successors of the fathers.
>Read the Didache
I have.
>Christianity was vastly different from what is taught in Protestant traditions
What it was vastly different from is Romanism. They had no popes, no sacrifice of the mass, no sacrament of penance, or any other such wicked devisions of satan.
>NONE of the apostles taught sola fide or sola scriptura
And yet these doctrines are derived from their writings, the New Testament.
>Judging by the way you talk about Catholics, you have some kind of deeper hatred for them
It is my earnest desire for papists to be saved out of their false religion.
meant
>However, the language which we use to describe how the persons of the Trinity relate to one another (not familial relation, but functional) is derived from the language put into the Nicene Creed
That is simply false. While it is certainly important, some terminology predates the council (such as essence, person, which comes from Tertullian) or comes from long after (relation, notion).
>Where your big hangup is, is that the traditions of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ are not "traditions of men" - but are traditions that are of God and handed down to us through the Apostolic ministry.
Your "church" is not the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and its traditions of God's true tradition, the holy bible.
>Considering how unlikely it is for text to survive over a thousand years that's not really damning criticism
We have many, many documents from the early church. None of them mention this, and many of them contradict it. Clearly, it did not exist until then.
>False. "Priest" is simply a transliteration, or "Englishing" of the word "presbyter."
Priest is etymologically derived from presbyter, but it has its own meaning, it is not a transliteration. There is no sacerdotal ministry in the New Testament but that of Jesus Christ.
>New Testament presbyters were Catholic priests.
They had no ontological mark and made no sacrifice.
>After His Resurrection, He instituted the sacrament of confession:
No He didn't, which is probably why it wasn't considered a sacrament for many centuries.
>John 20:22-23
Check the context. This has to do with Him sending them into the world. Their forgiving of sins is if they accept the message, the apostles tell them "your sins are forgiven", if they reject, "you are still in your sins". It isn't some medieval "sacrament".
>Why should I care that you crossed the Tiber?
You were the one that started accusing me of blindly accepting everything the Church says, like some cradle Catholic. Saying that I used to be a heretic like you was not a brag, but a refutation of your claim that I have always just accepted what the Catholic Church has taught.
>burden of proof
So a doctrine that arises 1500 years after Christ and His Apostles is the default position and that which was instituted by Christ (the Apostolic Ministry) is what has the burden of proof? No. None of the early Church Fathers taught sola scriptura.
>"crossing the tiber"
>"theopneustos"
>"if I need Roman tradition to teach the doctrines of God"
>"see my above exegesis"
It is now clear to me that your main source on all of this is not the Bible, but James White. This is probably where you learned such vehement Catholic hate.
>no popes
Peter, Clement, other bishops of Rome.
>no sacrifice of the mass
Just wrong. If you actually read the Didache as you said, you would know this was wrong. Ignatius of Antioch also spoke about the sacramental nature of the Eucharist and Justin Martyr described it at length.
>no sacrament of penance
Brother, this one is pretty explicit in scripture in John 20.
You are motivated by the same evil spirit that motivates James White.
>this thread
Reading this post I am almost convinced you ARE James White. Actually the greek exegesis funnyman himself.
Skeptic cathoic here, if Catholcism is wrong, which denomination is right?
If Catholicism is wrong, then we are all damned. Christ said that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church - a Church founded on Peter, who was the first Bishop of Rome.
Peter had the definitive ruling on the Council of Jerusalem because of divine revelation, and his faith was personally guaranteed by Christ. It was the opinion of many early Church Fathers, St. Irenaeus of Lyons among them, who said (in "Against Heresies") that every church must be in agreement with the church in Rome, on account of its preeminence in the teaching of the faith.
>Romanism. They had no popes, no sacrifice of the mass, no sacrament of penance
And yet all those things:
>The Papacy: Matthew 16:18-19 - “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
youtube.com
mostholyfamilymonastery.com
>The Sacrifice of the Mass: Matthew 26:26-28: Christ institutes the Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass during the Last Supper and then his ultimate Death and Resurrection.
>In the Mass, no less than on Calvary, Jesus really offers His life to His heavenly Father...The Mass, therefore, no less than the Cross, is expiatory for sins (John Hardon, The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism (Garden City: Image, 1981), Questions #1265, 1269, 1277.
See generally: vatican.va
AND
>The Sacrament of Confession: "And with that he breathed on them and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone's sins, they are forgiven; if you retain anyone's sins, they are retained.'"
John 20:22-23
are expressly taught in Scripture.
None
>You were the one that started accusing me of blindly accepting everything the Church says, like some cradle Catholic
Oh, allow me to clarify; every faithful Catholic blindly accepts everything the church says, whether they're a cradle Catholic or not. That's your epistemology now, you've given the pope rights to your mind, you can't help but be his faithful slave. I implore you to depart him.
>your claim that I have always just accepted what the Catholic Church has taught.
I didn't say always
>So a doctrine that arises 1500 years after Christ and His Apostles is the default position and that which was instituted by Christ (the Apostolic Ministry) is what has the burden of proof?
I reject your question-begging.
>It is now clear to me that your main source on all of this is not the Bible, but James White
I got it from the bible, not James White. Interesting how you decided to ignore my argumentation, and thus concede 2 Timothy 3:16-17. But I will correct your misunderstanding; First, "crossing the tiber" is a phrase which was first used by Catholic apologists, not James White. Second, "theopneustos" is the underlying Greek of 2 Timothy 3:16. Unless you're calling James White the Holy Spirit, he is not responsible for that. Third, that is exactly what you're saying. I don't even know why you try and connect that with James White. Fourth, that exegesis is purely my own, I'm not taking it from anyone.
>Peter
One elder amongst many, see 1 Peter 5:1
>Clement
Again, a co-equal presbyter-bishop, not a pope. All early 2nd century sources confirm there was no monarchical episcopate in Rome until about 140.
>other bishops of Rome
A bishop of Rome does not the pope make. Until Boniface III declared himself universal bishop, there was no pope.
>If you actually read the Didache as you said, you would know this was wrong
Maybe the problem is I read it without sufficient papal tint on my glasses.
You accuse me of omission, yet you omit my words to do so:
>Faith alone saves you, and true faith will be justified by the works that you do.
Your faith is not justified without works, ut the works are not what saves you.
>Ignatius of Antioch also spoke about the sacramental nature of the Eucharist and Justin Martyr described it at length.
Sacrament, not sacrifice.
>Reading this post I am almost convinced you ARE James White
I take that as a complement, but I disagree with James White about a number of things.
>If Catholicism is wrong, then we are all damned
If Protestantism is wrong, we are all damned. Unless a sinner is reconciled to God by faith alone, we are still in our sins.
OP I appreciate your patient explanations. I try this all the time too and I'm certain people really are challenged to study the Bible's truth on Catholic teaching
>no monarchial episopate in Rome until about 140
There was no sola scriptura or sola fide until the 1500's.
>Until Boniface III declared himself universal bishop, there was no pope
"For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church [in Rome], on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." - Irenaeus of Lyons, late 2nd century AD. Read his "Against Heresies" if you want the full quote.
>Maybe the problem is that I read it without sufficient papal tint on my glasses.
There you go again. Assuming certain falsehoods about my journey to the Catholic faith. I read it when I was a Baptist. You, however, say you were a Catholic before. So maybe it is you who read it with an idea that you wanted to disprove a tradition that you had already decided to reject on account of some other reason.
>Sacrament, not sacrifice
"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead." - Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrneans.
"... you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ." - same author, Letter to the Ephesians.
" Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons." - same author, Letter to the Philadelphians.
>bad Catholics are proof that the Catholic Church is wrong
Oh boy look at this fresh new meme hot off the presses.
Satan tempts people and works ill in their lives to cause them to fall, and then he uses their failures against them and against the Church of God. Sad.
>Priest is etymologically derived from presbyter, but it has its own meaning, it is not a transliteration. There is no sacerdotal ministry in the New Testament but that of Jesus Christ.
The power to confect the Eucharist, and to sacramentally absolve sins, are sacerdotal ministries. Pic related.
>>New Testament presbyters were Catholic priests.
>They had no ontological mark and made no sacrifice.
The Eucharist is a true sacrifice. Thus, Protestant early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes that in the early Church "the Eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian sacrifice. . . . [In line with] Malachi’s prediction (1:10–11) that the Lord would reject Jewish sacrifices and instead would have "a pure offering" made to him by the Gentiles. TheDidache indeed actually applies the term thusia, or sacrifice, to the Eucharist."
>>After His Resurrection, He instituted the sacrament of confession:
>No He didn't, which is probably why it wasn't considered a sacrament for many centuries.
The text of John 20 is really quite plain. It tells us when the sins spoken of are forgiven: when the apostles forgive them. Jesus "breathed on them" and gave them the power of the Holy Spirit to forgive sins. But the apostles are revealed to be the instruments of God’s forgiveness.
The earliest Christian writings, such as the first-century Didache, are indefinite on the procedure for confession to be used in the forgiveness of sins. But by the third century, Origen (241), Cyprian (251), and Aphraates (337), are clear in saying confession is to be made to a priest. Cyprian writes that the forgiveness of sins can take place only "through the priests." Ambrose says "this right is given to priests only." Pope Leo I says absolution can be obtained only through the prayers of the priests. These utterances are not taken as novel, but as reminders of accepted belief. We have no record of anyone objecting, of anyone claiming these men were pushing an "invention."
So why did all caticumens that died before they were baptized goto hell ?
Matthew 28:18-20- “And Jesus came and spoke unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you…”
Mark 16:15-16- “And he (Jesus) said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be damned.”
I'm not alleging anything that isn't substantiated by the statistics: a plurality Catholics in America believe contrary to the Bible on a number of pressing moral issues, especially compared to evangelicals
Wrong. Protestants are wrong about one of the central aspects of the faith, taught in John 6, that Christians must ACTUALLY eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ.
>There was no sola scriptura or sola fide until the 1500's.
But then why does my bible teach them?
>Assuming certain falsehoods about my journey to the Catholic faith. I read it when I was a Baptist.
So? People will often read these anceint things anachronistically when they are bathed in the context of modern Romanism.
>all the ECF quotation
You know, if I thought I could get through to you, I could explain these, but our discussion has shown I'd just be wasting time, speaking into the air.
>The power to confect the Eucharist
The Eucharist is not a propitiatory sacrifice. It is a sacrifice of all praise unto God the Father, which requires no special priest to perform.
>sacramentally absolve sins
Unknown to the New Testament
>The text of John 20 is really quite plain
Yeah, it is, and it still has to do with evangelism.
The flesh profiteth nothing.
theological debates are basically the same as arguing about if hulk can beat superman. its all imaginary, so who cares?
>But then why does my Bible teach them?
It doesn't. Charismatic heretical false prophets teach them.
>Quotes from the Early Christian Fathers being a bad thing
>I could explain these
You mean apply your exegesis mental gymnastics to them to undo what they are saying so you can use them to say the completely opposite thing? If you were to do that, you would be wasting your time.
>first said Ignatius said it wasn't a sacrifice
>Ignatius quote shared where he says its sacrificial
>"The Eucharist is not a propitiatory sacrifice."
That's moving the goalposts.
I was talking about the flesh of Christ, brother. It certainly doesn't profit nothing - you are twisting scripture around. You have no truth in you - only anger against the Church you were brought up in.
I will pray for you. Truly.
>theological debates
There's a board for this, and it isn't Sup Forums
>Welcome to /his/ - History & Humanities Anonymous ## Mod Mod Icon 11/01/15(Sun)03:36:48 No.27939 Sticky Closed [Reply]▶
> This board is dedicated to the discussion of history and the other humanities such as philosophy, religion, law, classical artwork, archeology, anthropology, ancient languages, etc. Please use /lit/ for discussions of literature. Threads should be about specific topics, and the creation of "general" threads is discouraged.