Free Republic

Next, how can you find what the original source was...?

Looks like a neo-pagan neo-Nazi from this link (https://www.inquisitr.com/5386494/holden-matthews-suspect-in-louisiana-church-fires/ )

No, no no Harley! You can’t start quoting scripture!

And whatever you do, don’t look to scripture where it compares circumcision to baptism. And uncircumcision, SKIP THAT PART! And definitely skip all that about human tradition, oh my! Too confusing without a inspired interpreter... (which none of the Catholics here are, unless that cheeky Freeper BennyXVI has finally unlurked.)

Rather turn to canon law, and the vast, unconfusing, unending and constantly revised, dust covered volumes of what the Roman Catholic Church has taught from the time of Peter the First (except when it didn’t... just ignore that part.)

/sarc off

Yup, the Jews, who were entrusted with the oracles of God (Romans 3:2), did not consider it inspired.

-The Catholic Church was established in Florida decades and decades before the Pilgrims came to America.

I KNEW it! Catholicism could only have started in Florida... (Sorry, had to, but I don’t care who you are, that is funny.)

“The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be false to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox’s gospel is my gospel. That which thundered through Scotland must thunder through England again.”—C. H. Spurgeon

The FIRST thing I see, after a long, long hiatus from the FR Religion forum, is this...

Thanks Lord for predestining this, I needed this chuckle just now, and thanks Gamecock!

Personally, I blame Robb Akey. I think his mustache is fake.

(Go BRONCO’S!)

>>...or you can follow the word of God.

>I do, in the Church He founded for us to guide us and protect us from error: the Catholic Church.

And if the Catholic Church at one time taught error, then where are you? Oh, that is where we have to use the old ‘private-interpretation,-and-not-really -taught-by-the-Church” trick...

“Missed it by THAT much...”

(”Would you believe two Boy Scouts and a pen knife?”)

Campion, as I think that you know your Catholic doctrines, I put this to you; is it only unborn babies that are speculated to go to limbo, or is it also the unbaptized born babies?

Great way of messing up the title, Otto...

Oh well...

Part 2 of this HUGE article, both length- and Theologically-wise.

Have a blessed day, Otto

Something that was featured on the show Wretched the other day...

Have a blessed day Otto

>Most of this article is revisionist nonsense. +Athanasius the Great was NOT a proto-protestant of any kind and what he was fighting was the theology of probably the then majority of the Church of Antioch, not of the “Established Church”.

Proto-protestant? He was a protestor against what he saw as heresy in the church. As such, he was a protestant.

Did he hold to what I hold? No. Do all the church fathers agree on everything? No, there is a cacophony of voices from the fathers, and there is little agreement on anything, just as in the Protestant church. Hmmm.

Does that matter that he does not agree with me? No, he is not the authority for faith, but as he said to the Arian, (I paraphrase) it is to the scriptures we must turn, since we do not hold to the same traditions. And I agree whole-heartedly with him. Do you?

So what is meant by Athanasius Contra Mundum if it was only his diocese that was turned away from orthodoxy? Why was is the Emperors that repeatedly banished him if it was only a local phenomenon? Why did Nicea need to happen if it was only Antioch? Why was there STILL Arians about after Nicea, or was Antioch the only bad seed? Or is that just a bunch of revisionist double-talk?

>That said, from an Orthodox perspective, it is even more nonsensical to say that the reformers had no right to attempt to reform the Latin Church in the 16th century. The “laos tou Theou”, the People of God, the laity, ALWAYS are the guardians of orthodox Christianity and it is their duty and role within The Church to keep hierarchs and clergy on an orthodox path. To say otherwise is to turn The Church over to hierarchs, some of whose skulls, we are taught, pave the floor of Hell, and reduce the laity to the status of pay, pray and obey serfs.

Interesting! So the church is held on it path by the laity, not those that teach the laity? That the hierarchs and clergy, those that know the sacred traditions, and pass them from generation to generation, are the source of heresy?

That is, as I could easily hear a Catholic say, is a blueprint for anarchy! Where is the authority, if it does not come from the Apostolic Succession, if those that are OF the succession are the ones we need to keep our eyes on for apostasy? Search your doctrine with fear and trembling! :o) You are sounding downright protestant there, Koloktronis! (I feel the protestant rising within you! Turn to the Dark Side! Bwah-ha-ha-HA!)

(Darth Kolokotronis? Hmmm. A bit long I think....)

>The Church is always reformed, but always in need of reform.

>Therefore everyone has the right to call for the authentic reform of the Church.

>And nobody has the right to call for the deformation of the Church.

Does that mean that nobody has the right to stop the reform of the Church, if needed?

Hmmm. So then Trent was wrong to kick out those that were attempting what is needed?

You will note that the Reformers wanted to be back with the RCC, and were, much like Athenasius calling for the reform needed within, until Trent kicked them out... Trent was a door slammed in the reformers faces, a firm rebuke to those doctrines that were fine just a decade prior to Luther, though Hus might argue that the debate was getting rather heated, pardon the pun. That was the cause of the schism, not the call for reform.

Athanasius, like the reformers, was not just fighting one diocese, but the majority of the church was Arian, and after the Pope Honorius signed, maybe coerced, an Arian creed, then (according to Vatican I) the whole of the Church was against him. Athanasius Contra Mundum.

Should Athanasius have submitted to the Pope and, now, the whole of the church on this, a central tenet of the small o orthodox faith? With the reformers, there was a movement, with Athanasius, there was only him. Even after Athanasius, and after Nicea the point was not settled (which makes the reaction of the church to the early popes not quite the same as the church gave to later popes.) It took many many years of convincing through the scriptures to kill that heresy.

Note that prior to the reformation, those that held to reformational ideas were happily within the RCC, with hardy debate, but nothing worth a Foxes Book of Martyrs entry, oh, except for Hus and a few others (so much for separated brethren being an unchanging teaching of the Church.) The Reformation did not come out of whole cloth, thus those of the Protestant ilk can truthfully claim that what we believe was held by those within the church prior to Trent.

Note that during Trent, a plurality, not a majority, actually voted for the canonization of the deuterocanonical books, thus even within the scholars and doctors of the faith, had they stuck with their pre-Trent beliefs, they too would be outside the body of Catholic believers. But unlike Athanasius, they did not stick with their beliefs, and just submitted to something which they did not hold. Not that this is a HUGE issue with Protestants, it might have led to a firmer grip on the scriptures.

Just saying...

"I must not press the authority of Nicea against you, nor you that of Ariminum against me; I do not acknowledge the one, as you do not the other; but let us come to ground that is common to both- the testimony of the Holy Scriptures."

After Katrina, Lakeshore Baptist was instrumental in building houses for those left homeless, and churches from around the country donated time and supplies to aid in the effort.

God bless this congregation!

>2 Thessalonians 2:15
>New Testament apostolic teaching to abide by oral tradition

Okay, what we have here is indeed a statement that the teachings of Paul, at least, since he was the one who wrote the verse, were to be held whether through oral teachings (preaching) or epistle.

Does this mean that what Paul wrote and preached are different? No. It would be wise to think that if they were that one or the other would be suspect. Since the scripture is God-breathed, inspired by the Holy Spirit, we know that that cannot be wrong. Thus if there is any contradictions between the oral traditions that Paul taught and the scriptures, the tradition must be wrong, unless you would put forth that the Spirit could make mistakes. I pray that this is not the case.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 just says that you are to stand firm in Paul’s teachings however you find the teachings. Both of us can agree that Paul should be held as an authority of the church. Peter wrote that Paul’s epistles were scripture. (Funny that he said nothing of what Paul taught orally. Good argument that they were one and the same. )

What we do have is inconsistencies in how the Catholic church judges tradition. Ireneaus claimis that Jesus died at age 50 (Against the Heresies, chapter 6 I believe), and that John and the apostles taught that to him personally. And the Catholic church, as far as I know, do not hold to that ‘apostolic’ teaching even though it comes through the very means of transmission from which the Catholic Church suggests it gets everything else. So if a claim is made through traditions what is the standard of measure for them?

I can dig up the list, much like yours, of Early Church Fathers that said that the SCRIPTURES are the measure. Will that hold water with you? No, for like your list, it is easy to cherry pick the massive and contradictory writings of the ECF’s, and as the original article shows, even the translations of their writings are suspect. Do we have as many original manuscripts of the Early Church Fathers as we have Scripture? Or are these ninth century translations which contain many errors, much like the medieval bible.

So what can we do? Well, we still have the actual writings of the apostles. Any traditions must be suspect without direct revelation by God, since there has yet to be a list of traditions which are shown to be canonical, inspired or that can even be verified to be something taught by Jesus, the Apostles, or even in some cases, the early church fathers themselves.

Now as for your list that I must agree is very very long, is there anything there that is taken from older works, which might be mistranslated, on purpose or mistaken? If you read James Swan’s blog, you can see the effects of the writings of the Catholic apologists during the time (and later) of Luther, and their purposeful twisting of Luther’s statements during the heated time of the Reformation.

The echos of such polemics are still being found on the lips of popular apologists who just do not do their homework. Have you done yours, checking the sources of that list? Are you sure you are not echoing the mistakes or possible sins of others?

Do you care enough to check? THAT is why I posted the article.

How much of your apologetic is made up of such blatant attempts at deception? Do you test your own arguments? Do you read/listen to the other side? Or do you justify it because it is in defense of the "Truth"?