PDA

View Full Version : The ultimate schismatic thread


Judean Zealot
July 28th, 2016, 05:54 PM
I'd like to watch a heated and thorough debate here of the various Christian denominations. Obviously Catholic versus Protestant would be the dominant theme, but I would like to hear about other sects as well. I'll fire it off:

PlasmaHam

Is it at all plausible that the entire body of Chalcedonian Christians (Catholics and Greek Orthodox) were living in grievous sin for all of 1,000 years until Christ was rediscovered in the Renaissance period, primarily through the agency of a lecherous, cruel king, and a crude and petulant German monk? After all, Christ was revealed already - it's not like there was some teleological necessity for all Christianity to be in mortal error.

Arkansasguy: You maintain that the Catholic Church is the oldest and purest of them all. Yet the nominally Catholic world was itself riven with dissent over numerous issues. Arianism, the Syriac and Coptic rejection of Chalcedon, and the Eastern Orthodox schismatic movement were all based on internal feuds from the very earliest days of Catholic organisation.

Voice_Of_Unreason
July 28th, 2016, 09:23 PM
Thank you for making this thread. I wrote a big long post regarding the Catholic Church and the Baptist churches and why one was superior to the other. But, cue my surprise that when I go to post it, the site won't allow me as I was inactive for too long. So I lost all my work.:(

I will just get to the most important subject of my last post. Good discussion starter for this thread. Here, are 8 marks of the New Testament Churches.

1. The head and founder is Christ, and the church is only the executive.
2. All principles and rules must be based on the Bible.
3. Two ordinances: Believer baptism, followed by the Lord's Supper.
4. Congregational policy, all members equal.
5. Members must be saved, and salvation is through Christ and him alone.
6. Church officers, the Bishop(pastor) and the Deacons.
7. Engages in spiritual warfare, not carnal.
8. Follows the Great Commission.

Rather broad, but you should get the idea. I may have missed a few points, and if you disagree with one of these points, feel free to discuss it with me.

Judean Zealot
July 28th, 2016, 09:57 PM
Thank you for making this thread. I wrote a big long post regarding the Catholic Church and the Baptist churches and why one was superior to the other. But, cue my surprise that when I go to post it, the site won't allow me as I was inactive for too long. So I lost all my work.:(

In the future when that happens it might pay to copy the entire text, reload the page, and then paste it.

2. All principles and rules must be based on the Bible.

This is itself Biblically unsupported, so far as I'm aware. As a matter of fact, the Bible is clear in many places that one positively ought to employ observation of the outside world as a means to recognising the nature of God. Just several verse out of innumerable:

When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained... (Psalms 8:3)

The Psalmist's reflections in this chapter are not the result of some sort of revelation, but of an analysis of nature.

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. (ibid. 19:1)

How can the heavens declare God's glory, if we cannot draw conclusions about that glory from the heavens?

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)

This verse goes even farther than the other ones. While the verses above only present extrabiblical investigation into God's nature as admirable, this verse positively requires it. Philosophy is but a rigorous investigation of the universe, and is thus crucial for the proper understanding of God's nature.


5. Members must be saved, and salvation is through Christ and him alone.

And works are excluded? What is the Sermon on the Mount if not an exhortation towards works, and when he concludes 'That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven', is he referring to works or not?


7. Engages in spiritual warfare, not carnal.

Do you preclude the possibility of Christians engaging in a just offensive war?

---------

In any event, you have yet to actually answer my opening question.

P.S. I hope you're also aware that I'm not actually Christian: I'm Jewish. This is just an enjoyable exercise for me, not a statement of my own beliefs.

candorgen
July 29th, 2016, 05:55 AM
Do you preclude the possibility of Christians engaging in a just offensive war?

PlasmaHam

As I am not in the know for a lot of this, I'll aim to be present throughout but as a minor contributor.

The 'spiritual warfare' part caught my eye; do you mean this in a literal sense?

It doesn't sound like much progress for Christianity to have internal conflict, if Judean Zealot's question is correct.

(Was also going to say copy/cut-paste for the long posts, as I always do to avoid such issues of losing all the text, but that was already mentioned.)

Stronk Serb
July 29th, 2016, 06:50 AM
Here we see the Catholics having seceeded from the Orthodox Church. During the Iconoclast Crisis, the Pope (bishop and Patriarch) of Rome used his influence to try and to exert himself as the first among equals, others wouldn't have it and debates ensued in the following centuries until the eastern Patriarchs excommunicated the pope and the pope did vice versa. Catholicism isn't the oldest because there are ancient Christian patriarchal seats that predate Rome, like Jerusalem, Damascus, Alexandria... with Constantinople and Rome they form the Pentarchy. For that matter you can say that neither is Orthodoxy.

Judean Zealot
July 29th, 2016, 07:54 AM
Thank you, Stronk Serb. This just goes to further what I'm saying here; the early schismatics were not so much forming a new church as they were interpreting the old.

Cadanance00
July 29th, 2016, 08:04 AM
The problem with that is that on side never convinces anyone else of anything. So why waste the effort?

Judean Zealot
July 29th, 2016, 08:09 AM
The problem with that is that on side never convinces anyone else of anything. So why waste the effort?

If I were in ROTW to proselytise I would have long ago stormed off in disgust, but quite fortunately, most of us have nothing of the sort in mind.

Paraxiom

What he means by 'spiritual warfare' is personal development, not internicine wars.

Stronk Serb
July 29th, 2016, 09:35 AM
Thank you, Stronk Serb. This just goes to further what I'm saying here; the early schismatics were not so much forming a new church as they were interpreting the old.

Also the cause for the Great Schism is the weakness of the Byzantines to reconquer or at least protect their (or more precisely the Pope's) interests in the former Western Roman Empire, Italy to be precise. That's why the Papacy sought the support of the Frankish Empire and then the Holy Roman Empire. In early Christendom, Roman emperors were organizing the assemblies like the ones held in Chalcedon, from the arrangements of seats to the financing of the trips there. That's how the "render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar" came to being. That's why they also added the tenets to respect both God's law and the laws of the land. Ever since it was legalized in Rome, emperors sought to use it for personal gain and in the service of the state.

phuckphace
July 29th, 2016, 11:39 AM
I come from a Protestant background and my time at several such churches left me extremely disillusioned with the faith. although I understand now that my disillusionment didn't rest with the entire religion in general, I can't say I really blame anyone with a similar background when they decide to cut themselves loose.

my time at most Wednesday night Bible studies would invariably turn into tedious back-and-forth arguments about the Biblical basis for baptism and its fundamental necessity, whether or not you can be a Christian and accept evolution as fact, or if you can become a Christian and then lose your salvation (and if so, how) is it adultery to divorce your wifebeating spouse and then remarry, and so on and so forth. in appearance and character there's all the nouveau corniness of the Mormon church but without the Ordnung.

if the above is your only option you're better off just being agnostic, it's where you'll end up anyway

Voice_Of_Unreason
July 29th, 2016, 12:30 PM
Judean Zealot

Sorry about forgetting to answer your initial questions. I would first like to say that Catholics are not doomed to Hell. You can be both a Catholic and a Christian. All you need to do to be a Christian is to accept Christ as savior, your denomination depends on how you interpret his commandments. Looking at Christian history, you can see that Catholic doctrines like infant baptism, the Papacy, mariology, and Baptismal regeneration were all adopted at the various councils centuries after Jesus lived on the Earth. Pagan influence and greed brought upon these changes. There were still churches that obeyed Christ commandments, but they were oppressed and forced into hiding. Stonk Serb brought up some good points about the Catholic Church.

Paraxiom Your question in regards to my point on Spiritual warfare. That is about Christianity, and the fight against the evils of this world. The devil, sin, and such. As Christians we fight for Christ on a spiritual level, not a worldly one. Your question involving a Christian's involvement in a war between Earthly nations and what makes a just war is a discussion for another day.

Stronk Serb
July 29th, 2016, 12:39 PM
When I think about it, the way rulers used Christianity to benefit the state, I can see a contrast with Islam. Early Muslim rulers (in my opinion based on facts that I saw) used the state to benefit Islam, the whole state was dictated by Islam, whereas the European nobles dictated the Christian practices in their realms which sometimes and sometimes not got opposed by their clerical leadership. I still find it amusing that our "Saint" Sava is haikd as an educator and enlightener even though he burned ten times more Bogimils and pagans than taught people how to write.

Arkansasguy
July 29th, 2016, 02:34 PM
The basic problem with Protestantism, is that Jesus didn't leave us a Bible and tell us to set up a Church based on it. He left us a Church (a concrete hierarchical organization), which then wrote the Bible.

You maintain that the Catholic Church is the oldest and purest of them all. Yet the nominally Catholic world was itself riven with dissent over numerous issues. Arianism, the Syriac and Coptic rejection of Chalcedon, and the Eastern Orthodox schismatic movement were all based on internal feuds from the very earliest days of Catholic organisation.

Certainly there were schismatics before the Protestant revolt. Heck even in the New Testament itself, the early Gnostics heretics are repeatedly referenced (in condemnation).

People rebelling against the authority of the Church has always been an issue. The way that you can tell what the authentic Christian doctrine is, is by listening to the Church. If you're going to reject ecclesiastical authority, you have no reason to accept the canon of the NT, as its authority (both in terms of who wrote it and who decided what was and wasn't canon) is known to us via the authority of the Church.


2. All principles and rules must be based on the Bible.
...
4. Congregational policy, all members equal.

Where are either of these principles expressed in the Bible?

Looking at Christian history, you can see that Catholic doctrines like infant baptism, the Papacy, mariology, and Baptismal regeneration were all adopted at the various councils centuries after Jesus lived on the Earth.

Identify a council that established one of these things new (where it was not already being practiced).

Pagan influence and greed brought upon these changes.

Pagans had no notion of baptismal regeneration as they had no notion of original sin. It's a priori impossible that these beliefs could have been borrowed from pagans given that pagans didn't believe them.

There were still churches that obeyed Christ commandments, but they were oppressed and forced into hiding.

There is no historical evidence for any baptist-like churches in existence before the 16th century. Claims that there were are nothing more than exercises in story-telling.

Voice_Of_Unreason
July 29th, 2016, 03:40 PM
The basic problem with Protestantism, is that Jesus didn't leave us a Bible and tell us to set up a Church based on it. He left us a Church (a concrete hierarchical organization), which then wrote the Bible.


I have no idea what you are talking about. Churches were set up after Jesus went back to Heaven and were based off the Bible. But again, the Bible back then wasn't yet the Bible, so books like First Timothy, long after Jesus' Earthly ministry, were used to teach what the churches should look like. Also, the Bible only lists 2 officers for the churches, not the huge amount the Catholics use.


Certainly there were schismatics before the Protestant revolt. Heck even in the New Testament itself, the early Gnostics heretics are repeatedly referenced (in condemnation).

People rebelling against the authority of the Church has always been an issue. The way that you can tell what the authentic Christian doctrine is, is by listening to the Church.


No, the way you can tell authentic authentic Christian doctrine is through the Bible. Also, are you saying that no one else should have the right to interpret the Bible? Only the church?

And how do you know the Catholic Church was on the right side of all of those splits? What happened to those other churches?


Where are either of these principles expressed in the Bible?


Matthew 20:25-28
Matthew 23:1-12
2 Timothy 3:15
2 Timothy 1:7

Identify a council that established one of these things new (where it was not already being practiced).


You're covering yourself here with the parenthesis. All of these practices were done before the councils officially established them. But these practices were not in conjunction with Biblical principles, and were not practiced in Bible times. But I will say that the papacy was officially started in 313AD, when Constantine was actually given the rule as part of the unholy union of church and state. Infant Baptism was ordered under law in 416AD. The fourth ecumenical council established Mariolatry in 451AD. Seventh council in 787AD established prayer to saints. The list goes on.

Pagans had no notion of baptismal regeneration as they had no notion of original sin. It's a priori impossible that these beliefs could have been borrowed from pagans given that pagans didn't believe them.


Numerous pagan cultures believed in the healing and purification that came with immersion in water. Even Judaism has hints of that. It isn't too much of a stretch to think that some Christians started to believe that Baptism was essential to salvation and purification.

There is no historical evidence for any baptist-like churches in existence before the 16th century. Claims that there were are nothing more than exercises in story-telling.

The Fifth ecumenical council was to condemn certain books by so called 'heretics." To claim that the Catholic church was alone prior to the Reformation is foolhardy. One of the big reasons the Dark Ages are so dark and mysterious was that the Church burned any books that spoke against them. This is common history, we know that the Catholic Church suppressed those who spoke against it. But if you want specifics, here are a few names of churches that coexisted with the Catholic. Donatists, Paterines, Cathari, Paulicans, AnaBaptists, Petro-Brussians, Arnoldists, Henricans, Albigenses, and Waldenese.

candorgen
July 29th, 2016, 03:58 PM
What he means by 'spiritual warfare' is personal development, not internicine wars.

Is an interesting way of putting it.



if the above is your only option you're better off just being agnostic, it's where you'll end up anyway

The reserved life of a proper atheist :D .


Your question in regards to my point on Spiritual warfare. That is about Christianity, and the fight against the evils of this world. The devil, sin, and such. As Christians we fight for Christ on a spiritual level, not a worldly one. Your question involving a Christian's involvement in a war between Earthly nations and what makes a just war is a discussion for another day.

Alright, I get your view, though I don't get the fighting to take the level of a way that is against all the evils. I'd get if 'both sides' agreed to the fighting, then it can be called a war. What about something like 'great conflict'?


Looking at Christian history, you can see that Catholic doctrines like infant baptism, the Papacy, mariology, and Baptismal regeneration were all adopted at the various councils centuries after Jesus lived on the Earth. Pagan influence and greed brought upon these changes. There were still churches that obeyed Christ commandments, but they were oppressed and forced into hiding.

I don't see how 'the pagans' had an influence on this, or their apparent 'greed'.
'Pagan' is an umbrella term for religions that are not Abrahamic, and more into pantheism. This huge group of religions' followers can't collectively be blamed for the changes within Catholicism that you speak of, nor any specific religion of the group. If anything, pagan religions were forced into hiding.

Arkansasguy
July 29th, 2016, 04:15 PM
I have no idea what you are talking about. Churches were set up after Jesus went back to Heaven and were based off the Bible.

The New Testament was written several decades after Jesus's ascension, and what was and wasn't in the New Testament (early Church leaders wrote a lot of things, most aren't in the canon of Scripture), wasn't decided until the fourth century (by one of those councils you decry). The fact of the matter is, the NT was written and codified by Catholic hierarchy. When you accept that any given NT book is legitimately part of the Bible, you're simply taking the word of the Catholic Church.

But again, the Bible back then wasn't yet the Bible, so books like First Timothy, long after Jesus' Earthly ministry, were used to teach what the churches should look like.

First Timothy wasn't used to teach what the Church should look like, it was a teaching on what the Church should look like, given on St. Paul's authority as an apostle. It wasn't recognized as divinely inspired scripture until after the fact.

Also, the Bible only lists 2 officers for the churches, not the huge amount the Catholics use.

"Presbyters who preside well deserve double honor, especially those who toil in preaching and teaching." - 1 Timothy 5:17


No, the way you can tell authentic authentic Christian doctrine is through the Bible.

In order to rationally accept the authority of the Bible, you have to accept the pre-existing authority of its authors and compilers.

Also, are you saying that no one else should have the right to interpret the Bible? Only the church?

Anyone who reads anything engages in interpretation. But only the Church can definitively interpret divine revelation, as this faculty was given to it.

Matthew 20:25-28
Matthew 23:1-12
2 Timothy 3:15
2 Timothy 1:7

None of those say anything about equality.

You're covering yourself here with the parenthesis. All of these practices were done before the councils officially established them.

Precisely. So your claim that they were established by councils is false.

But these practices were not in conjunction with Biblical principles, and were not practiced in Bible times.

Unsupported assertion.

But I will say that the papacy was officially started in 313AD, when Constantine was actually given the rule as part of the unholy union of church and state. Infant Baptism was ordered under law in 416AD. The fourth ecumenical council established Mariolatry in 451AD. Seventh council in 787AD established prayer to saints. The list goes on.

Factually incorrect.

Numerous pagan cultures believed in the healing and purification that came with immersion in water. Even Judaism has hints of that. It isn't too much of a stretch to think that some Christians started to believe that Baptism was essential to salvation and purification.

Numerous pagan cultures believed that the sky was blue, life continues after death, etc. No pagan culture accepted the doctrine of original sin, heck even Jews don't accept it. It's a uniquely Christian belief.

The Fifth ecumenical council was to condemn certain books by so called 'heretics." To claim that the Catholic church was alone prior to the Reformation is foolhardy. One of the big reasons the Dark Ages are so dark and mysterious was that the Church burned any books that spoke against them. This is common history, we know that the Catholic Church suppressed those who spoke against it. But if you want specifics, here are a few names of churches that coexisted with the Catholic. Donatists, Paterines, Cathari, Paulicans, AnaBaptists, Petro-Brussians, Arnoldists, Henricans, Albigenses, and Waldenese.

Obviously there were heretics. There have been heretics since biblical times. But you are moving the goalposts, what I said was that there weren't Baptists before the 16th century.

Voice_Of_Unreason
July 29th, 2016, 04:39 PM
The New Testament was written several decades after Jesus's ascension, and what was and wasn't in the New Testament (early Church leaders wrote a lot of things, most aren't in the canon of Scripture), wasn't decided until the fourth century (by one of those councils you decry). The fact of the matter is, the NT was written and codified by Catholic hierarchy. When you accept that any given NT book is legitimately part of the Bible, you're simply taking the word of the Catholic Church.

I see no evidence for your claims here.


First Timothy wasn't used to teach what the Church should look like, it was a teaching on what the Church should look like, given on St. Paul's authority as an apostle. It wasn't recognized as divinely inspired scripture until after the fact.

That makes no sense. Paul sent it as teachings to Timothy of the ways a church should be operated. How is it not correct?

"Presbyters who preside well deserve double honor, especially those who toil in preaching and teaching." - 1 Timothy 5:17
That is referring to the Deacons, also called the Elders, not to another group. I don't know what translation you use, but mine is pretty clear on the matter.

In order to rationally accept the authority of the Bible, you have to accept the pre-existing authority of its authors and compilers.

Anyone who reads anything engages in interpretation. But only the Church can definitively interpret divine revelation, as this faculty was given to it.

Precisely. So your claim that they were established by councils is false.


What if the Church is wrong? John 5:39 clearly tells people to search the scriptures so they can know personally what Christ teaches. It never says refer to the church.

All right, so not all those things were established by councils, good for you. That still doesn't undermine the fact that they were established at a later point after unholy influence.

Unsupported assertion.
Factually incorrect.

Why don't you tell me what the Bible and history says then? I expect every Catholic doctrine to be clearly spoken of in the Bible, and an explanation of everything that happened at the councils.

Numerous pagan cultures believed that the sky was blue, life continues after death, etc. No pagan culture accepted the doctrine of original sin, heck even Jews don't accept it. It's a uniquely Christian belief.
You are nitpicking this too much. Is it unreasonable to believe that early Christians could have gained the idea of salvation by baptism when pagan cultures practice purification by baptism? To Christians, salvation is purification, so the connection isn't as far as you liken it to be.

Obviously there were heretics. There have been heretics since biblical times. But you are moving the goalposts, what I said was that there weren't Baptists before the 16th century.
The AnaBaptists practiced many principles of modern Baptists. Some even say that the Baptist denomination sprung out of the AnaBaptists. The teachings are very similar, and some AnaBaptists during the Reformation started to drop the "Ana" part of their name.

Arkansasguy
July 29th, 2016, 05:09 PM
I see no evidence for your claims here.

Because it's just a fact. The NT was written after the Church started. The only reason anyone would have had for accepting it, would be if they already accepted its authors as having authority from God.

That makes no sense. Paul sent it as teachings to Timothy of the ways a church should be operated. How is it not correct?

Precisely. And the only reason that anyone would have cared what Paul had to say, would be if they already accepted Paul as having authority.

That is referring to the Deacons, also called the Elders, not to another group. I don't know what translation you use, but mine is pretty clear on the matter.

Unsupported assertion.

I might note that even if the Bible didn't speak of the presbyteral order, which it does, that doesn't equate to a denial of its historicity.

What if the Church is wrong? John 5:39 clearly tells people to search the scriptures so they can know personally what Christ teaches. It never says refer to the church.

All right, so not all those things were established by councils, good for you. That still doesn't undermine the fact that they were established at a later point after unholy influence.

If the Church is untrustworthy, then the Bible would be untrustworthy. The books of the NT were written by early Church leaders, and the canon of the NT (what counts as scripture) was decided by the Church.

Why don't you tell me what the Bible and history says then? I expect every Catholic doctrine to be clearly spoken of in the Bible, and an explanation of everything that happened at the councils.

I can't give an exhaustive history of Catholic doctrine. Pick one doctrine or council and I'll give you a synopsis.

Also, as I noted earlier, the doctrine "all doctrine is found in the Bible" is itself not present in the Bible.

You are nitpicking this too much. Is it unreasonable to believe that early Christians could have gained the idea of salvation by baptism when pagan cultures practice purification by baptism? To Christians, salvation is purification, so the connection isn't as far as you liken it to be.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. It is true that historically, everyone (Christians, Jews, pagans) recognized the symbolism of water and purification. That's not an argument against salvation by baptism.

The AnaBaptists practiced many principles of modern Baptists. Some even say that the Baptist denomination sprung out of the AnaBaptists. The teachings are very similar, and some AnaBaptists during the Reformation started to drop the "Ana" part of their name.

Which is still ducking the point. The Anabaptists originated in the 16th century.

candorgen
July 29th, 2016, 05:26 PM
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. It is true that historically, everyone (Christians, Jews, pagans) recognized the symbolism of water and purification. That's not an argument against salvation by baptism.


For a minor correction, many areas of paganism see salt as a purifying substance, not water. Water is purified by salt in ceremonies involving both, through this idea. If anything, that makes 'the pagans' less involved here.

Voice_Of_Unreason
July 29th, 2016, 05:31 PM
For a minor correction, many areas of paganism see salt as a purifying substance, not water. Water is purified by salt in ceremonies involving both, through this idea. If anything, that makes 'the pagans' less involved here.

It is still purification through immersion, salt water or not.

Arkansasguy

Paul was not given authority over the churches. I never recall Paul saying that he was in charge, and that people had to obey his every whim. People respected Paul as a teacher and someone who has seen Jesus. They knew he was wise, so they listened to him. He never had hierarchical authority over the churches as a whole. Nobody did.

Being that all your previous claims are basically "The church can do anything, therefore it is perfect" or "That's not right because I said so" I have decided to move this in a different direction. Here are a few questions for you.

Do you disagree with any practice of the Catholic Church?
Is Baptism essential to salvation?
When you do the Lord's Supper, does that bread and wine become the literal blood and body of Jesus?
Should ordinary people have the right to challenge the Church on theological issues?
What is necessary for salvation?
Can a Protestant be saved?
Can you lose your salvation?

Arkansasguy
July 29th, 2016, 05:39 PM
For a minor correction, many areas of paganism see salt as a purifying substance, not water. Water is purified by salt in ceremonies involving both, through this idea. If anything, that makes 'the pagans' less involved here.

Good point.

It is still purification through immersion, salt water or not.

Arkansasguy Is Baptism essential to salvation? I am not sure of the Catholic stance on this.

Yes.

candorgen
July 29th, 2016, 05:45 PM
It is still purification through immersion, salt water or not.


I'll leave you to continuing the debate on that part. :D


Good point.


I responded by reason to give you a bit more info on that. Did not intend to attack you general argument (as I am mostly spectating with not much to say).

Voice_Of_Unreason
July 29th, 2016, 05:50 PM
Yes.

So, the thief who was saved by Jesus at Calvary is enduring eternal torment in Hell, good to know.

Why isn't Jesus enough? Are you saying that Jesus alone can not save you? That he isn't powerful enough for such?

BTW, I edited my last post to include more questions. I hope you read and answer some.

EDIT: Further research has shown that this quote is unsupported historically, so I am exempting it from this discussion. The book I am referencing was published before this knowledge existed, apologizes and I admit my mistake.

Arkansasguy
July 29th, 2016, 06:27 PM
Do you disagree with any practice of the Catholic Church?

No.

Is Baptism essential to salvation?

Yes.

When you do the Lord's Supper, does that bread and wine become the literal blood and body of Jesus?

Yes.

Should ordinary people have the right to challenge the Church on theological issues?

No. And for reference, neither do professional theologians have the right.

What is necessary for salvation?

Specifically? To die in the state of grace. So be baptized, and do not have any unrepented mortal sins.

Can a Protestant be saved?

Ordinarily, no. Young children, people who've never heard of the Church, etc. can be exceptions.

Can you lose your salvation?

Yes.

So, the thief who was saved by Jesus at Calvary is enduring eternal torment in Hell, good to know.

Obviously not. In the first place the great commission had not yet been given, so baptism was not at the time necessary. In the second place, the desire for baptism in one for whom it is impossible to be baptized can suffice.

Why isn't Jesus enough? Are you saying that Jesus alone can not save you? That he isn't powerful enough for such?

This is a dumb argument. God's power isn't the question, it's what means did he establish as the instrument of salvation.

On a side note, as reference to your previous claims that Baptists or Baptist-like churches didn't exist prior to the Reformation, here is a quote from a notable member of the Catholic Church.

Cardinal Hosius (1524) President of the Council of Trent
"Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the last twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater numbers than all the Reformers."

Quote is spurious. It never appeared in his writings.

Voice_Of_Unreason
July 29th, 2016, 07:59 PM
Thank you for answering my questions, I now have enough info to close and shut this debate. I will address each separately as we go on.

Continuing on from the Baptism discussion. You claim that baptism is required for salvation, despite numerous verses like Ephesians 2:8-9 and Acts 2:21. What you are saying, is that for the life of Jesus prior to his return to Heaven, that baptism was not required. Yet Jesus suddenly decided to make baptism a requirement. But apparently it isn't that much of a requirement, as you can still be saved without it. But only if you can't physically do it, or have a want. This is all too complicated, and the Biblical basis of this can be seriously challenged. Salvation is through faith, not works. Baptism is an outward showing of our faith, salvation through trust in Jesus Christ is what saves us on the inside, and that is all that really counts. If you want to convince me of this, quote some verses that explicitly say that baptism is required, and all these exceptions.

Also, what if the person has no want of baptism but is baptized anyways? Does that work count towards salvation? And shouldn't we do like Christ and be baptized in the same manner he was?





Quote is spurious. It never appeared in his writings.

My apologizes, I have done some additional research and have realized the the quote is historically unfounded. A book I am using for research is rather old, and lists that quote as fact, but modern research supports it not being true. I wasn't trying to lie or fabricate information, I probably should of double checked that quote with a more modern source. I hope you understand that I meant no falsehoods.

Judean Zealot
July 29th, 2016, 09:56 PM
PlasmaHam

To me, there seem to be a number of crucial points that you are ignoring.

The first is that you claim that the Bible (including the Pauline epistles) alone is authoritative. By what authority is that so? By what authority is the Bible even canonised? It was the Council of Carthage which did so in the fourth century, but of course you don't give the councils any ecclesiastical power, so surely you aren't relying on them? I also find it curious that you use a verse from the Gospels to prove the authority of the other 23 books of the New Testament, all of which were ostensibly written at a later date.

Additionally, you have failed to respond to my post close to the beginning of the discussion, wherein I've demonstrated that the Bible itself accords validity, perhaps even canonicity, to ideas arrived at via independent thought and the observation of nature.

Arkansasguy

All, or at the very least most of the early schismatics were not challenging the existence of Peter's church, but merely disputed the ecclesiastical succession. The Roman Church was simply the one which emerged triumphant, but you can't pretend as if they were merely maintaining the apostolic structure.

The Greek Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, and the Arians all laid claim to the authority of the old church, and there's absolutely no reason to just presume that the Roman Church was in the right and they were in the wrong. You can't simply handwave them away; you have to actually address their claims to supremacy.

Porpoise101
July 29th, 2016, 10:09 PM
PlasmaHam
The Greek Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, and the Arians all laid claim to the authority of the old church, and there's absolutely no reason to just presume that the Roman Church was in the right and they were in the wrong. You can't simply handwave them away; you have to actually address their claims to supremacy.
Seconded. Christians in Kerala in India would say they have inherited the Church from St Thomas himself. Each sect has it's own justification, be it theology, history, or tradition.

Voice_Of_Unreason
July 29th, 2016, 10:32 PM
PlasmaHam

To me, there seem to be a number of crucial points that you are ignoring.

The first is that you claim that the Bible (including the Pauline epistles) alone is authoritative. By what authority is that so? By what authority is the Bible even canonised? It was the Council of Carthage which did so in the fourth century, but of course you don't give the councils any ecclesiastical power, so surely you aren't relying on them? I also find it curious that you use a verse from John to prove the authority of the other 23 books of the Bible, all of whom were ostensibly written at a later date.

Additionally, you have failed to respond to my post close to the beginning of the discussion, wherein I've demonstrated that the Bible itself accords validity, perhaps even canonicity, to ideas arrived at via independent thought and the observation of nature.


In Christianity, it is believed that all scriptures is given by inspiration of God, and that it is consistent and ever lasting. Scholars from then to now agree that the books included in the Bible are inspired. The council there was to simply add clarification. That was not an ecumenical council anyways, the ones that really count for Catholics. There is a huge difference between clarification and adding completely new doctrine. My personal belief, and one supported by the Bible, is that the Bible holds all you need to know about Christ. No Earthly church or sinning pope can override its authority. If you find that absurd, then just look at the opposition. He is openly telling people to not trust the Bible, but to trust people. The Bible is perfect, Paul praised the churches for checking his teachings with scriptures, people are not. And the Catholic Church is comprised of people. He is also saying that the Church was justified in the killings of over 50 million other Christians simply because they weren't part of the church. Those two ideas he supports leads to a dictatorship, not liberty.

lliam
July 29th, 2016, 10:33 PM
1. The head and founder is Christ, and the church is only the executive.

I always had the impression that he was taken as the founder. For me Christ is just a rabbi who tried to explain his interpretation of faith to the people.

Some dudes did before him and will still do it same way, without having (had) the intention to establish a new religion or such. I believe much more, Christians abused their Rabbi in that case. But it seems that's how history of any relion begins. So that isn't something special actually.

Judean Zealot
July 29th, 2016, 10:41 PM
In Christianity, it is believed that all scriptures is given by inspiration of God, and that it is consistent and ever lasting. Scholars from then to now agree that the books included in the Bible are inspired. The council there was to simply add clarification. That was not an ecumenical council anyways, the ones that really count for Catholics. There is a huge difference between clarification and adding completely new doctrine. My personal belief, and one supported by the Bible, is that the Bible holds all you need to know about Christ. No Earthly church or sinning pope can override its authority. If you find that absurd, then just look at the opposition. He is openly telling people to not trust the Bible, but to trust people. The Bible is perfect, Paul praised the churches for checking his teachings with scriptures, people are not. And the Catholic Church is comprised of people. He is also saying that the Church was justified in the killings of over 50 million other Christians simply because they weren't part of the church. Those two ideas he supports leads to a dictatorship, not liberty.

The Councils of Carthage were synods, which were extremely valued in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is built on the stratum of the synods.

Anyways, you're not answering my challenges, you're simply repeating yourself. So for the sake of clarity:

How does one know which books are inspired?

Does or doesn't the Bible itself encourage using nature, as opposed to scripture, as a means for attaining knowledge of God?

Voice_Of_Unreason
July 29th, 2016, 10:46 PM
How does one know which books are inspired?

Does or doesn't the Bible itself encourage using nature, as opposed to scripture, as a means for attaining knowledge of God?

Careful study and interpretation. I'm not a Bible scholar so I really don't know.

God does say you will see his hand in nature, but it never encourages to use human perception over the holy scriptures. Humans are seriously flawed, I don't see how our perception is greater than God's, which you are basically asking.

Judean Zealot
July 29th, 2016, 11:05 PM
Careful study and interpretation. I'm not a Bible scholar so I really don't know.

So I can carefully study Genesis and conclude that it's not inspired? You don't recognise any dogma regarding which works are inspired?

God does say you will see his hand in nature, but it never encourages to use human perception over the holy scriptures. Humans are seriously flawed, I don't see how our perception is greater than God's, which you are basically asking.

Just because some of God's "perception" is expressed in the Bible, that doesn't indicate that all of it is.

Besides, the verse I mentioned from Romans clearly indicates that human reasoning must be used in perceiving God. All your talk of superseding scripture is quite irrelevant to the Catholic Church; they merely interpret it and occasionally add to it - they never strike out sentences or whatever.

Arkansasguy
July 29th, 2016, 11:28 PM
Thank you for answering my questions, I now have enough info to close and shut this debate. I will address each separately as we go on.

Continuing on from the Baptism discussion. You claim that baptism is required for salvation, despite numerous verses like Ephesians 2:8-9 and Acts 2:21. What you are saying, is that for the life of Jesus prior to his return to Heaven, that baptism was not required. Yet Jesus suddenly decided to make baptism a requirement. But apparently it isn't that much of a requirement, as you can still be saved without it. But only if you can't physically do it, or have a want. This is all too complicated, and the Biblical basis of this can be seriously challenged. Salvation is through faith, not works. Baptism is an outward showing of our faith, salvation through trust in Jesus Christ is what saves us on the inside, and that is all that really counts. If you want to convince me of this, quote some verses that explicitly say that baptism is required, and all these exceptions.

Also, what if the person has no want of baptism but is baptized anyways? Does that work count towards salvation? And shouldn't we do like Christ and be baptized in the same manner he was?

A point you still seem not to grasp is that your demands for doctrines to be expressly set forth in the Bible, is itself not expressly set forth in the Bible. Consequently that doctrine (sola scriptura) is logically self-refuting.

But in any case, if you want a scripture verse, 1 Peter 3:21, or the great commission for that matter.

If a person were to be involuntarily baptized, the grace of baptism would not be imparted. It is a matter of some dispute among Catholic theologians whether or not the sacramental character of baptism would be validly imparted.

All, or at the very least most of the early schismatics were not challenging the existence of Peter's church, but merely disputed the ecclesiastical succession. The Roman Church was simply the one which emerged triumphant, but you can't pretend as if they were merely maintaining the apostolic structure.

The Greek Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, and the Arians all laid claim to the authority of the old church, and there's absolutely no reason to just presume that the Roman Church was in the right and they were in the wrong. You can't simply handwave them away; you have to actually address their claims to supremacy.

That St. Peter was the bishop of Rome is not a matter of historical dispute. The argument made by the Eastern schismatics isn't that they had legitimate Petrine succession, but rather that all bishops are equal and consequently that the Pope lacks the authority to command the others. Ultimately this falls into the same vicious circle as Protestantism (albeit to a lesser degree, since the egalitarianism was more restricted), since the question of how to tell what is the orthodox faith becomes unanswerable when bishops disagree.

Judean Zealot
July 30th, 2016, 12:18 AM
That St. Peter was the bishop of Rome is not a matter of historical dispute. The argument made by the Eastern schismatics isn't that they had legitimate Petrine succession, but rather that all bishops are equal and consequently that the Pope lacks the authority to command the others. Ultimately this falls into the same vicious circle as Protestantism (albeit to a lesser degree, since the egalitarianism was more restricted), since the question of how to tell what is the orthodox faith becomes unanswerable when bishops disagree.

The Orthodox don't recognise the Petrine Succession ( as the Catholic Church understands it) to begin with. They see Petrine Primacy as something not specifically limited to the Bishopric of Rome, but as a general model of localised Churches, with each bishop as the head of his respective church. Thus they claim succession to the original Petrine structure.

Should the bishops disagree, they can quite easily form a constituted council by way of which the majority should carry the day. And if that fails, well, every bishopric possesses its own Catholicity - who says they have to all agree?

And even should you maintain the Roman doctrine of Petrine supremacy and an international Catholicity, you can still make the case that Constantinople had supplanted Rome by the time the Lombards invaded Italy and the Eastern Roman Empire lost all influence in Central Italy. Already by the Council of Constantinople in 381 Constantinople was declared "The New Rome". At Chalcedon this was reaffirmed, with Rome only maintaining a slight edge due to it's illustrious past. By the time of the schism though, Rome had turned into an utterly useless backwater (indeed, the papacy was more attracted to Ravenna, and later on they even moved to Avignon). This sundering of the bishopric from the empire can very well be interpreted to finally give Constantinople the position as the "Rock of Peter".

Arkansasguy
July 30th, 2016, 01:39 AM
The Orthodox don't recognise the Petrine Succession ( as the Catholic Church understands it) to begin with. They see Petrine Primacy as something not specifically limited to the Bishopric of Rome, but as a general model of localised Churches, with each bishop as the head of his respective church. Thus they claim succession to the original Petrine structure.

Right. And that is of course poppycock. It engages in the same error that the Protestants do (although of course to a lesser degree) by replacing actual hierarchical succession with "structural succession".

Should the bishops disagree, they can quite easily form a constituted council by way of which the majority should carry the day.

Why is it that Chacledon was accepted, but Second Ephesus was deemed a robber council? You could go with the viciously circular argument that the Church accepted one but not the other, but that doesn't tell you anything because Monophysites would simply assert that the "real" Church came to the opposite conclusion. If you want to have a test that can actually be applied, it has to depend on the judgment of particular authorities.

And if that fails, well, every bishopric possesses its own Catholicity - who says they have to all agree?

Because if they don't agree, then some of them are wrong.

And even should you maintain the Roman doctrine of Petrine supremacy and an international Catholicity, you can still make the case that Constantinople had supplanted Rome by the time the Lombards invaded Italy and the Eastern Roman Empire lost all influence in Central Italy. Already by the Council of Constantinople in 381 Constantinople was declared "The New Rome". At Chalcedon this was reaffirmed, with Rome only maintaining a slight edge due to it's illustrious past. By the time of the schism though, Rome had turned into an utterly useless backwater (indeed, the papacy was more attracted to Ravenna, and later on they even moved to Avignon). This sundering of the bishopric from the empire can very well be interpreted to finally give Constantinople the position as the "Rock of Peter".

In the first place, the political events that occurred don't dictate the location of Petrine authority. Secondly, Constantinople never claimed authority over the whole Church.

Voice_Of_Unreason
July 30th, 2016, 10:20 AM
Arkansasguy You seem to be supporting the idea that the church, a group of people, can override Biblical standards by human understanding and tradition. The Bible speaks very poorly of human understanding but very highly of the Bible.


Psalms 3:5-7
"Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil."

John 1:1
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

The Bible clearly say to not trust your own understanding, but to trust God. And the Holy Scriptures are part of God. So we should trust in the Bible with all our hearts, and lean not to our own knowledge.

1 Peter 3:21 makes sense when you look at verses 18-22. That "baptism" is referring to Noah and his salvation from the flood. The flood, "baptized" the Earth, in the same manner that Jesus saves your soul. Symbolism of salvation, numerous other verses refer to the flood being a baptism as well. The Great Commission never says Baptism is required, it is simply a command for the disciples to do to the saved. Contrast that to the numerous Bible verses that state salvation is through faith alone, not of works. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Also, you failed to answer my question in regards to whether we should be baptized just like Christ. Are you saying that the Church doesn't know? Yet you have been saying that the Church is the utmost authority on the Bible. What other things might the Church not know?

So, how are infant baptisms voluntary? The child has no say in the matter, the parents force the child to do such. If there is some sort of exception here as well I am going to get annoyed.

How I am not saved? What would it take for me to be saved by Catholic standards? Your answer for my earlier question seems to be missing a few things from Catholic doctrine. if you aren't missing anything, then by your standards I would be saved.

Judean Zealot
July 30th, 2016, 01:06 PM
Psalms 3:5-7
"Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil."

It's Proverbs, not Psalms. Anyways, the Hebrew word Betakh, or 'trust', connotes reliance upon His providence, not belief of second-hand revelations. You would do better to quote from the previous chapter:

My son, if thou wilt receive my words, and hide my commandments with thee; So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding; Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God. For the Lord giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding. He layeth up sound wisdom for the righteous: he is a buckler to them that walk uprightly. He keepeth the paths of judgment, and preserveth the way of his saints. Then shalt thou understand righteousness, and judgment, and equity; yea, every good path.
Proverbs 2:1-9)

While God is the source of all understanding, it is clearly the prerogative of the individual to search for God on his own; to 'incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding' and to 'seek her as silver, and search for her as for hid treasures'.

More damning, of course, are the verses from Deuteronomy (30:12-14):

It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

It doesn't direct us to the books of the Bible, but to our very own 'hearts and mouths'. For that matter it doesn't direct one to some supreme ecclesiastical tyranny either.



John 1:1
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Logos is more than dead words captured on paper, it is the dynamic process of understanding; the Word here is the intellective capacity.

Arkansasguy
July 30th, 2016, 10:32 PM
Arkansasguy You seem to be supporting the idea that the church, a group of people, can override Biblical standards by human understanding and tradition. The Bible speaks very poorly of human understanding but very highly of the Bible.


Psalms 3:5-7
"Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil."

John 1:1
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

The Bible clearly say to not trust your own understanding, but to trust God. And the Holy Scriptures are part of God. So we should trust in the Bible with all our hearts, and lean not to our own knowledge.

Precisely. You can't just trust your own understanding of the Scriptures, because as humans we frequently err.

1 Peter 3:21 makes sense when you look at verses 18-22. That "baptism" is referring to Noah and his salvation from the flood. The flood, "baptized" the Earth, in the same manner that Jesus saves your soul. Symbolism of salvation, numerous other verses refer to the flood being a baptism as well. The Great Commission never says Baptism is required, it is simply a command for the disciples to do to the saved. Contrast that to the numerous Bible verses that state salvation is through faith alone, not of works. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Did the Ark save Noah and his family from drowning, or was it only a symbol of their being saved from drowning?

Also, you failed to answer my question in regards to whether we should be baptized just like Christ.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

So, how are infant baptisms voluntary? The child has no say in the matter, the parents force the child to do such. If there is some sort of exception here as well I am going to get annoyed.

I was addressing the hypothetical of an adult being involuntarily baptized. An adult who refused baptism would thereby impede the grace of it. Infants aren't capable of agreeing or refusing to do anything, so the same reasoning doesn't hold at all.

P.S. Infants don't get a say in anything.

How I am not saved? What would it take for me to be saved by Catholic standards? Your answer for my earlier question seems to be missing a few things from Catholic doctrine. if you aren't missing anything, then by your standards I would be saved.

Acceptance of the Catholic faith and entry into the Church.

Logos is more than dead words captured on paper, it is the dynamic process of understanding; the Word here is the intellective capacity.

Indeed. Moreover, the point St. John was making was that Jesus is the Logos. Obviously he was not speaking of written word.

Judean Zealot
July 30th, 2016, 10:50 PM
Arkansasguy

I suppose you are correct that if Catholicity is to be desired power ought to be concentrated into the hands of the individual. I, however, cannot get my head around the idea of an authoritative church to begin with: why is Catholicity even necessary with regard to rites and obscure dogma? I see no reason why Arianism or Nestorianism should be anathema and preclude one from receiving grace in the first place.

I understand the desirability of Catholicity in works, indeed, that was the function of the majoritarian Sanhedrin; but on what basis is it desirable in theology? Surely theological belief cannot be coerced or imposed, but must be truly understood and accepted by the individual? Provided that one generally believe in the incarnation and a few other fundamental dogmas, why should he not be able to make that belief coherent as he sees fit?

Also, how do you interpret the verses I brought from Deuteronomy 30?

Dalcourt
July 30th, 2016, 11:26 PM
Arkansasguy, PlasmaHam, Judean Zealot and whoever else posted here I just wanted to tell you guys that I really enjoy reading this thread.
A few things I read here were actually new to me and you quoted some stuff I had never thought of in certain contexts.
I'm facing some of the theoretical things you discussed here in reality. So I find this thread extremely useful.

Arkansasguy
July 31st, 2016, 01:30 AM
Arkansasguy

I suppose you are correct that if Catholicity is to be desired power ought to be concentrated into the hands of the individual. I, however, cannot get my head around the idea of an authoritative church to begin with: why is Catholicity even necessary with regard to rites and obscure dogma? I see no reason why Arianism or Nestorianism should be anathema and preclude one from receiving grace in the first place.

I understand the desirability of Catholicity in works, indeed, that was the function of the majoritarian Sanhedrin; but on what basis is it desirable in theology? Surely theological belief cannot be coerced or imposed, but must be truly understood and accepted by the individual? Provided that one generally believe in the incarnation and a few other fundamental dogmas, why should he not be able to make that belief coherent as he sees fit?

Also, how do you interpret the verses I brought from Deuteronomy 30?

Doctrine dictates practice. If Arianism is true, then all Trinitarianism is idolatrous. If Nestorianism is true, then arguably Eucharistic Adoration is idolatrous. If purgatory doesn't exist, indulgences are in vain. And so on.

Moreover, praxis evolves over time. If there is no authoritative orthodoxy, then there is no standard by which the development of praxis may be constrained, in which case Christian practice would amount to nothing more than mere cultural traditions, no more or less valid than any other.

I might also add that Arians do not believe that God became incarnate. And Nestorians have a radically different understanding of the concept. The argument about theological coercion is simple, the fact that the Church affirms a dogma as true means that it is guaranteed to actually be true (God would not allow an error to be dogmatically defined). Consequently accepting a belief affirmed as dogmatic by the Church is straightforwardly reasonable, assuming that one accepts the authority of the Church.

God's word is present to us via the teaching of the Church*, which is a thing concretely present rather than abstract.

*There are of course truths about God which can be known through natural reason. But there are others which are strictly revealed, and in any case it is the former which are more vague and remote.

Voice_Of_Unreason
July 31st, 2016, 11:57 AM
Did the Ark save Noah and his family from drowning, or was it only a symbol of their being saved from drowning?
Interpretations vary depending on how you look at it, but I believe that neither of those was what the verse talked of. Salvation is the flood, we are the Earth. Salvation wipes us free of sin like the flood washed the Earth of wickedness.

I'm not sure what you mean here.
I am talking about sprinkling vs immersion here. Should we do like Christ did and be immersed, or should we be lazy and just sprinkle.

I was addressing the hypothetical of an adult being involuntarily baptized. An adult who refused baptism would thereby impede the grace of it. Infants aren't capable of agreeing or refusing to do anything, so the same reasoning doesn't hold at all.

Everything I have read regarding baptism is that it comes after salvation. Jesus commands his disciples to save, and then to baptize. After someone is saved in the Bible, then they are baptized, not before. Baptism is an outwards showing of faith, how does that apply to infants? Infants can't accept Christ as savior, infants do not realize what baptism is. To them, it means absolutely nothing other than getting wet. God's grace is never forced upon some one, they must accept it, and infants cannot accept it.

Acceptance of the Catholic faith and entry into the Church.

Where in the Bible is Catholic Church membership required for salvation? Salvation is the core of Christianity, and human tradition has no right to change it. That's like a Jewish sect coming and claiming that God has revealed to them 600 more laws that Jews must obey, whether or not they contradict the Pentateuch doesn't matter.

The Catholic Church, something you call perfect and holy, has a ton of sin behind. You cannot deny that, we have proof that the Church sent numerous people to death, excommunicated thousands, kept Bible out of the hands it was meant for, Indulgences, Inquisitions, bloody politcal wars, witch hunts, various other unspeakable things. A small estimate puts the number of killed Christians by the Catholic Church at 50 million. The Baptists do not have anything remotely near that.

Arkansasguy
July 31st, 2016, 05:51 PM
Interpretations vary depending on how you look at it, but I believe that neither of those was what the verse talked of. Salvation is the flood, we are the Earth. Salvation wipes us free of sin like the flood washed the Earth of wickedness.

Did the flood actually remove the wicked from the Earth, or was it only a symbol of their removal?

I am talking about sprinkling vs immersion here. Should we do like Christ did and be immersed, or should we be lazy and just sprinkle.

Baptism can be administered by immersion or pouring. The practice of sprinkling is not licit because of the danger that water will not actually flow on the head of the person.

Everything I have read regarding baptism is that it comes after salvation. Jesus commands his disciples to save, and then to baptize. After someone is saved in the Bible, then they are baptized, not before.

You are engaged in question begging here. People believe and then are baptized, you are simply assuming that they are "saved" at the moment they believe.

Baptism is an outwards showing of faith, how does that apply to infants? Infants can't accept Christ as savior, infants do not realize what baptism is. To them, it means absolutely nothing other than getting wet. God's grace is never forced upon some one, they must accept it, and infants cannot accept it.

You are again engaged in question begging. Obviously I don't accept the premise that baptism is merely a demonstration of faith.

And as I pointed out before, infants can't consent to anything.

Where in the Bible is Catholic Church membership required for salvation? Salvation is the core of Christianity, and human tradition has no right to change it. That's like a Jewish sect coming and claiming that God has revealed to them 600 more laws that Jews must obey, whether or not they contradict the Pentateuch doesn't matter.

Where in the Bible does it say that everything must be contained in the Bible?

The Catholic Church, something you call perfect and holy, has a ton of sin behind. You cannot deny that, we have proof that the Church sent numerous people to death,

Just a side note, ecclesiastical courts didn't have the authority to issue death sentences. Rather they excommunicated and the state executed some excommunicated. Granted, the Church approved of this.

excommunicated thousands,

Which is problematic because?

kept Bible out of the hands it was meant for,

Historically baseless. The Church suppressed translations of the Bible deemed inaccurate, but she never prohibited the faithful from owning Bibles.

Indulgences, Inquisitions,

There's nothing wrong with either of those things.

I highly suspect you don't understand what either of them were anyway.

bloody politcal wars,

By definition, wars are carried out by the state. And nearly every state in history has been involved in wars.

witch hunts, various other unspeakable things.

Is it your position that criminalizing witchcraft is wrong?

A small estimate puts the number of killed Christians by the Catholic Church at 50 million. The Baptists do not have anything remotely near that.

That number is an extremely gross exaggeration. You're going to need to substantiate it.

Voice_Of_Unreason
July 31st, 2016, 07:01 PM
I believe that everything essential to Christianity is contained in the Bible. You can cut and paste all you want, but the Bible is still the core of Christianity. If you are the purest Christians, then in my opinion you must be the closest to the Bible and Jesus' and the disciples' teachings. I am sorry if you believe that if the Bible doesn't say something that you are automatically allowed to exploit that to your own personal whims.


Baptism can be administered by immersion or pouring. The practice of sprinkling is not licit because of the danger that water will not actually flow on the head of the person.


The Greek word baptism literally means to dip someone in or immerse them in water. Everyone baptized in the Bible was immersed. Looking at Catholic history, you see that immersion was supported as the only kind of baptism, except for cases where water was in lacking supply. Overtime, that became the standard, despite that originally it was frowned upon and wasn't accepted overall.

You are engaged in question begging here. People believe and then are baptized, you are simply assuming that they are "saved" at the moment they believe.


No, I am not, you are avoiding the question. Infants don't believe, and then are baptized. Infants, as you said, cannot accept things, so they can't accept Jesus Christ as savior. You just said that they believe and then are baptize, but infants can't believe.

Where in the Bible does it say that everything must be contained in the Bible?


Where in the Bible does it say you can redefine the core principles of Christianity?

Just a side note, ecclesiastical courts didn't have the authority to issue death sentences. Rather they excommunicated and the state executed some excommunicated. Granted, the Church approved of this.

The Catholic Church had considerable power over the states. History shows this. By your logic, Hitler was innocent because he didn't kill anybody himself, but instead had others do it for him.

Did Jesus approve of anyone dying? Especially someone who didn't know salvation, at least for your perspective. Even when the merchants were defiling the Temple, Jesus didn't go and demand their deaths. He didn't call for the death of the adulterer, or the death of those who afflicted him at Calvary. Simply approving the death of unbelievers is proof enough for me who is on the right.

Historically baseless. The Church suppressed translations of the Bible deemed inaccurate, but she never prohibited the faithful from owning Bibles.

All the Bibles were in Latin, and the only people who knew Latin were the priests of the Catholic Church. Yet they denied the population lessons in Latin. You know why? Because knowledge is power, and they wanted the power. Those who did engage in translations were deemed heretics. So they basically denied people the ability to read the Bible.

There's nothing wrong with either of those things.

I highly suspect you don't understand what either of them were anyway

Please, if you are so knowledgeable, explain. I know what they are good and well, but I imagine most people here don't, so it will be a good lesson.

By definition, wars are carried out by the state. And nearly every state in history has been involved in wars.


Again, the Catholic Church had considerable leverage on the states. If the Church didn't like a certain country, they just needed to pull a few strings and a sympathetic country was fighting against it for the Church. There was even a papal state, with solders, and wars, all supported by the Church.

Is it your position that criminalizing witchcraft is wrong?


No, but anyone with any sense knew that witch hunts were about senseless killing and revenge, not actual witches.

That number is an extremely gross exaggeration. You're going to need to substantiate it.


Check attachment for a small sampling. 50 million was actually a rather small guess.

Arkansasguy
July 31st, 2016, 11:29 PM
I believe that everything essential to Christianity is contained in the Bible.

Very strangely, you believe this even though the Bible itself doesn't say this.

The Greek word baptism literally means to dip someone in or immerse them in water. Everyone baptized in the Bible was immersed. Looking at Catholic history, you see that immersion was supported as the only kind of baptism, except for cases where water was in lacking supply. Overtime, that became the standard, despite that originally it was frowned upon and wasn't accepted overall.

And? If you're asserting that no development of praxis can be legitimate, you'll need to explain why.

The essential form of baptism (water flowing on the head) has remained the same, that is what matters.

No, I am not, you are avoiding the question. Infants don't believe, and then are baptized. Infants, as you said, cannot accept things, so they can't accept Jesus Christ as savior. You just said that they believe and then are baptize, but infants can't believe.

Adults believe and then are baptized, as you said. Since infants cannot believe (or choose to do anything, at all) they are baptized based on the parents' and godparents' promise to teach them the faith.

Where in the Bible does it say you can redefine the core principles of Christianity?

That's not what anyone has asserted. So this is both a strawman and a red herring.

Did Jesus approve of anyone dying?

He never condemned the death penalty, if that's what you're asking. He certainly didn't correct the repentant thief when he said that he had been condemned justly.

Are you asserting that the death penalty is wrong?

Especially someone who didn't know salvation, at least for your perspective.

Nothing so focuses the mind as the prospect of a hanging in a fortnight.

All the Bibles were in Latin, and the only people who knew Latin were the priests of the Catholic Church. Yet they denied the population lessons in Latin. You know why? Because knowledge is power, and they wanted the power. Those who did engage in translations were deemed heretics. So they basically denied people the ability to read the Bible.

First of all, most educated people would have understood Latin. Second of all, most people were not literate at all, and consequently couldn't read the vernacular either. Third and most importantly, there were legal vernacular translations during the Middle Ages, for example the Bible Historiale, a thirteenth century French translation. So your assertion is simply false. Any lack of access to readable Bibles was due to illiteracy and the high cost of producing books before the printing press.

Please, if you are so knowledgeable, explain. I know what they are good and well, but I imagine most people here don't, so it will be a good lesson.

Indulgences are actions (saying certain prayers, performing pious works, etc.) which remit the temporal punishment due to sins that have already been forgiven. They're only as problematic as the doctrine of purgatory is.

The inquisition was a tribunal which heard cases against people accused of heresy or other canonical crimes. It had no jurisdiction over non-Christians.

Again, the Catholic Church had considerable leverage on the states. If the Church didn't like a certain country, they just needed to pull a few strings and a sympathetic country was fighting against it for the Church. There was even a papal state, with solders, and wars, all supported by the Church.

And? Every state in history has engaged in wars.

No, but anyone with any sense knew that witch hunts were about senseless killing and revenge, not actual witches.

Based on what exactly?

Keep in mind that if a person is engaged in trying to cast spells and the like, they are guilty of witchcraft even if they aren't actually doing anything real. Also keep in mind that the inquisition didn't exactly encourage witch hunts, and many prominent "witch hunting manuals" were condemned by the inquisition.

Check attachment for a small sampling. 50 million was actually a rather small guess.

Getting into a detailed historical analysis would be beyond the scope of our discussion. Suffice to say, such numbers are prima facie absurd because the parts of Europe where the Inquisitions operated simply didn't have that many people to kill.

For reference, here is a virulently anti-Catholic source that only places the death toll at thirty thousand.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Inquisition.html

candorgen
August 3rd, 2016, 05:13 PM
Did the flood actually remove the wicked from the Earth, or was it only a symbol of their removal?


Keeping up my very occasional presence here, I'm just pointing out the observance that literal/metaphorical interpretation of the Bible is a good factor in these sort of things.

It reminds me that one time in a reading group, I was casual witness of a Platonist friend engaging in persistent argument with a Catholic theologian who saw the Garden of Eden as a literal event, along with the bodies of humans being returned to them physically after death during entrance to heaven.

We were actually looking into a christian-neoplatonist text, but there were evidently some small areas of arguably sharp divergence in ideas.

Voice_Of_Unreason
August 3rd, 2016, 08:57 PM
Very strangely, you believe this even though the Bible itself doesn't say this.


Where in the Bible does it say you can change it. Whether you admit it or not, Catholicism is changing the basic principles of Christianity. I would like to see were the Bible explictally says that the Bible isn't enough and that humans have the right to change the path to salvation.


And? If you're asserting that no development of praxis can be legitimate, you'll need to explain why.

The essential form of baptism (water flowing on the head) has remained the same, that is what matters.


You need to explain how praxis is legitamate, you have yet to answer that. How is the essential form of baptism water flowing on the head? What if the essential form of baptism is water flowing over the whole body, which makes much more sense theologically and Biblically?


Adults believe and then are baptized, as you said. Since infants cannot believe (or choose to do anything, at all) they are baptized based on the parents' and godparents' promise to teach them the faith.


So, they aren't baptized by their own faith but the faith of others? That makes no sense within a Christian context. Salvation is a personal experience and admittance, and since you think baptism is essential for baptism, shouldn't it be the same? Every example of baptism is after salvation through Christ, if you believe the Church can change this, and that baptism is essential for salvation and salvation is the core of Christianity, how then are you not changing the basic principles of Christianity?


That's not what anyone has asserted. So this is both a strawman and a red herring.



He never condemned the death penalty, if that's what you're asking. He certainly didn't correct the repentant thief when he said that he had been condemned justly.

Are you asserting that the death penalty is wrong?



Nothing so focuses the mind as the prospect of a hanging in a fortnight.



First of all, most educated people would have understood Latin. Second of all, most people were not literate at all, and consequently couldn't read the vernacular either. Third and most importantly, there were legal vernacular translations during the Middle Ages, for example the Bible Historiale, a thirteenth century French translation. So your assertion is simply false. Any lack of access to readable Bibles was due to illiteracy and the high cost of producing books before the printing press.

"Most educated people would have understood Latin" I literally just explained how that doesn't work.

Canon 14 of the Council of Toulouse:

"We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books."

I would really like to know where in the Bible does it say that sinners can't challenge the authority of other sinners on the Bible.

He never condemned the death penalty, if that's what you're asking. He certainly didn't correct the repentant thief when he said that he had been condemned justly.

Are you asserting that the death penalty is wrong?

You are avoiding the question. Did Jesus ever approve the death of someone who didn't agree with him? Did Jesus call for the death of the man who was blaspheming his name? Or the Pharisees who opposed him? God is just, but he also loves everyone and respects their own opinions. Unlike the Catholic Church

Nothing so focuses the mind as the prospect of a hanging in a fortnight.

You are supporting using the threat of death to convert people to Christianity!?!?

Indulgences are actions (saying certain prayers, performing pious works, etc.) which remit the temporal punishment due to sins that have already been forgiven. They're only as problematic as the doctrine of purgatory is.


The doctrine of purgatory is pretty problematic, and so is your answer. God says to come to him "as you are," not as the Catholic Church tells you to be. Where in the Bible does it say works are necessary for salvation, especially those involving money?

Arkansasguy
August 4th, 2016, 12:08 AM
It's readily apparent that you aren't familiar with logic. I'm not saying this to insult you, but so that you can better your reasoning skills. If I quote part of your post and reply to it with the name of a fallacy, google it and learn what it is.

Where in the Bible does it say you can change it.

Straw man

Whether you admit it or not, Catholicism is changing the basic principles of Christianity.

Begging the question

You need to explain how praxis is legitamate, you have yet to answer that.

Literally every community has practices observed by tradition.

How is the essential form of baptism water flowing on the head? What if the essential form of baptism is water flowing over the whole body, which makes much more sense theologically and Biblically?

This is actually a great example of why ecclesiastical authority is needed. The Bible doesn't say what the essential form of baptism is, ergo we need a divinely established authority capable of expounding on the point.

So, they aren't baptized by their own faith but the faith of others?

Is anything done to an infant on its own initiative?

That makes no sense within a Christian context. Salvation is a personal experience and admittance, and since you think baptism is essential for baptism, shouldn't it be the same? Every example of baptism is after salvation through Christ

Begging the question

"Most educated people would have understood Latin" I literally just explained how that doesn't work.

No, you simply asserted it.

Canon 14 of the Council of Toulouse:

"We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books."

A temporary order given by a local council during a crisis. Does nothing to detract from the fact that plenty of vernacular translations abounded that did not receive any condemnation.

You are avoiding the question. Did Jesus ever approve the death of someone who didn't agree with him? Did Jesus call for the death of the man who was blaspheming his name? Or the Pharisees who opposed him? God is just, but he also loves everyone and respects their own opinions. Unlike the Catholic Church

Jesus never had the opportunity while alive to advice rulers. So his position must be inferred.

You are supporting using the threat of death to convert people to Christianity!?!?

Moving the goalposts

We were discussing the inquisition, a body which exercised authority over wayward Christians. The issue of forced conversions (which are wrong) is completely besides the point.

The doctrine of purgatory is pretty problematic, and so is your answer. God says to come to him "as you are," not as the Catholic Church tells you to be. Where in the Bible does it say works are necessary for salvation, especially those involving money?

I'm now certain that you do not understand the practice of indulgences. Before we continue on this point, explain to the best of your understanding what indulgences are.

Summarizing what you know about the doctrine of purgatory would also be helpful.