BTFO Protestantism

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.

google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjYof-1jZnNAhVEIsAKHQVEDZgQFggeMAA&url=http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/vox/vol09/scripture_lane.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHuKK0dcvJaz9ZQgsdIpunJKLv4GA

Other urls found in this thread:

ccel.org/ccel/alexander_a/canon.iii.v.html
newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm
newadvent.org/fathers/0103418.htm
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 canon&f=false
academia.edu/185285/Why_Luther_is_not_Quite_Protestant_The_Logic_of_Faith_in_a_Sacramental_Promise
newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Perspective_on_Paul#Faith.2C_or_faithfulness
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>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.

ccel.org/ccel/alexander_a/canon.iii.v.html

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

...

>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.

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

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.

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.

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.

newadvent.org/fathers/0103418.htm

>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?

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

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.

Epiphanius considers Barauch as canonical, merging it with the Epistle of Jeremiah

And also

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 canon&f=false

>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.

>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 Sup Forums

You can't make this shit up

>>worshipping
Read CCC

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.

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

I searched on you link, but it doesn't say anything about Barauch.

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*

>you will never be BTFO out Twitter by the pope

Nothing. Catholics are permanently cucked to their pope and asinine traditions.

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.

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.

"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.

>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?

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

...

Harry Y Gamble and ANS Lane are both Protestant

...

...

More

...

...

...

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

newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm

...

...

...

Since cuckolics are becoming more Protestant since Vatican 2.0, hurl in some cuckolic memes as well

hehehe

>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

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

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.

Have you seen Calvin's Geneva?

That's the Christian version of an Islamic State

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.

Wait, the Pope has banter?

>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.

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

I don't believe that that screenshot is real

I'm neutral on the subject, I'm agnostic.

Then let it be said that Calvinism is absurd

If apocrypha are so holy, why Jesus validated the hebrew canon instead of septuagint.

...

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?

Explain this

True faith inevitably leads to works.

You can't have works without faith.

Correct.

Except "faith" in Sola Fide is in fact god mind controlling you and not of one's own!

It's passive

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

I do that by fucking ten kids in church everyday.

What have you done?

>shit that's not in Scripture

alrighty then.

Orthodox. We don't believe heaven and hell are two different places.

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.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Perspective_on_Paul#Faith.2C_or_faithfulness

bump

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

That isn't to say God controls you. Those are two vastly different things.

It's all real, the master of banter will become president.

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.

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?

Yes. Why?

It was never formalized. Only the Reformation caused the boundary of Scripture to be definitively set in stone.

>ven so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself - James 2:17


Jesus said we need both Faith and works

So how is that Sola Fide in the Protestant sense which denies the role of effort in Salvation and advocate monergism?

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

True faith implies works, m8

Faith without works is dead. All protestants know this."

t. presbyterian

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.

Never imagined that the pope was into top bantz
R E K T
E
K
T

>academical
Academic you idiot.

>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

>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.

Does it matter yuo grandma nasi?