The Church vs. The Individual

[Anselm01]

The Canons of Nicea are to do with management of the early church. The RCC doesn't operate under those canons, but according to the doctrines in the Council of Trent and afterwards.

No. Sorry. You are rewriting history here. Trent is in a line of Councils. You make it sound like Catholic Church started at Trent, which is anachronistic.

You said "The 'T'rinity" which can only mean the RCC Trinity as philosophically formulated.

Do you deny the Trinity is valid?

Qualifications in philosophy were never essential. Trinity is philosophy. Did you know that the philosophical Trinity wasn't defended until 3rd century AD by Tertullian in "Against Praxeas"?

I grant that Christian thinkers grow in understanding on truths that were known in part by earlier Christians. A tree goes through different phases of growth, from acorn to fully grown tree. In all phases it is still a tree.

"Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" 1 Cor 1:20.

Are you implying you need qualifications in philosophy for faith?

I am explicitly stating that philosophical language was needed to help define orthodox concepts, like the the Trinity.

DId you know that Justin Martyr in the second century AD was the first to describe the Son and Father as the same "being" (ousia) and yet are also distinct faces (prosopa), anticipating the three persons (hypostases) that come with Tertullian and later authors."

Trinity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I have no issue with this. See my comments above. Justin was a trained philosopher who used his knowledge to assist in the development of a proper understanding of the nature of Jesus.

So by your reckoning every "Christian" in the first hundred years after Christ had no faith, or had an imperfect and heretical faith, just because they had never conceptually formulated the philosophical Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit resplendent in the same 'ousia'?

No, they had a faith, but not a fully actuate understanding of the Trinity and nature of God. Once this was defined in Nicaea and Constantinople, understanding was achieved and all discussions ceased.

Tell me, why do you suppose the church grew fastest when unhindered by philosophy? And when it became hindered by its own philosophy, it then had to turn to Mahometan techniques of conversion by employing the sword?

I deny this whole statement as anything near to what happened in the early Church. Where are your historical sources?

As for Christ's presence: "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Matt 18:20. What's that got to do with one's views on the Eucharist? Why is the RCC anathematizing those who take a different position? I tell you why: they detract from the sacremental power of the priest and his power to own his congregation rather than captivate them by the spirit.

No. See the writings of Ignatius of Antioch and his condemnation of docetism.

“They [heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ which suffered four our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes” (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Symrnaeans Ch. VII).

Calvinism vs Arminianism is again an interminable philosophical dispute about how God operates: God is greater that either, because God is greater than human philosophy.

Are you against philosophy?

You can be as uncharitable as you like to Protestant denominations for Pro 26:2 "Like a fluttering sparrow or a darting swallow, an undeserved curse does not come to rest."

The point is whether the critique is justifiable. In this day, many large denominations are critiquable for many reasons.

But why should I buy your critique?

No


'Tis my aim but also God's will.


Sure. But he doesn't do magic by virtue of fallacies like purgatory and prayers for the dead. It must happen in this life, even if only as the thief on the cross.

Again, why should I buy your view on these things?

The phrase "bind and loose" is commonly misunderstood. Many suppose it is about sin. But in fact its Jewish legal phraseology meaning to declare something forbidden or to declare it allowed.

The early Church disagrees with you.

Unfortunately for the RCC, the Petrine keys were not delivered to it. There is no doctrine in the bible about that. The rules of the RCC are its own rules, and not the rules of Peter or of heaven.

Again, per the OP, why should I buy your views on this?

 

[Theo1689]

Yes, the Catholic Church has defined what is essential and what is debatable, but once it speaks on what is debatable, then what is debatable now essential.

So "certainty" = "essential"?

So salvation in Romanism is essentially getting 100% on a Theology test?

But there are those who who proper exegesis and yet still disagree. For example, William Lane Craig on the nature of Christ.

You keep making red herring assumptions like, "If anyone disagrees with a doctrine, then nobody can know the right answer". All you ever do is point out people or groups who disagree on something, as if that's the least bit relevant. For instance, Mormons reject monotheism. But that doesn't mean we can't know monotheism is true. JW's reject the deity of Christ, but that doesn't mean we can't know Christ is God.

 

[Theo1689]

No. See the writings of Ignatius of Antioch and his condemnation of docetism.

“They [heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ which suffered four our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes” (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Symrnaeans Ch. VII).

And here is a perfect example of Romanists ripping Ignatius out of context. The "heretics" he was referring to were Gnostics, who denied that Christ came in the flesh. There were Docetics, who believed that Jesus merely had the "appearance" of coming in the flesh. (This is the origin of the false doctrine of the "perpetual virginity" of Mary, since when Christ was born, He didn't pierce her hymen, not having any material body to do so.)

Look at what Ignatius wrote leading up to this quote:

Smyr. 1:1 ... He is really of the line of David according to the flesh,
... was really born of a virgin,
Smyr. 1:2 ... He was really nailed to the cross in the flesh for our sake
Smyr. 2:1 All these sufferings, ... He suffered really,
.. as He also really raised Himself from the dead.
It is not as some unbelievers say, who maintain that His suffering was a make-believe.
Smyr. 3:1 For myself, I know and believe that He was in the flesh even after the Resurrection.
Smyr. 3:2 And when He came to Peter and Peter’s companions, He said to them: “Here; feel me and see that I am not a bodiless ghost.”
Smyr. 3:3 ... He ate and drank with them like a being of flesh and blood, ...
Smyr. 5:2 ... Really, what good does anyone do me if he praises me, but blasphemes my Lord by not admitting that He carried living flesh about Him?


So the whole point is that these heretics denied Christ coming in the flesh. Therefore there would be no reason to recognize that the bread represents the flesh of His physical body.

The early Church disagrees with you.

Only when you twist them and rip them out of context.

 

[Anselm01]

So "certainty" = "essential"?

So salvation in Romanism is essentially getting 100% on a Theology test?

Salvation is by God's grace alone.

You keep making red herring assumptions like, "If anyone disagrees with a doctrine, then nobody can know the right answer". All you ever do is point out people or groups who disagree on something, as if that's the least bit relevant. For instance, Mormons reject monotheism. But that doesn't mean we can't know monotheism is true. JW's reject the deity of Christ, but that doesn't mean we can't know Christ is God.

Dr. Craig is highly educated. I would venture far more educated than you. The issue here is not what we know, but the justification for what we know. You and Craig disagree. He is more educated than you, so who should we believe. Besides, you have made it clear that your views trump any church or person you disagree with, regardless of education.

 

[Anselm01]

And here is a perfect example of Romanists ripping Ignatius out of context. The "heretics" he was referring to were Gnostics, who denied that Christ came in the flesh. There were Docetics, who believed that Jesus merely had the "appearance" of coming in the flesh. (This is the origin of the false doctrine of the "perpetual virginity" of Mary, since when Christ was born, He didn't pierce her hymen, not having any material body to do so.)

Look at what Ignatius wrote leading up to this quote:

Smyr. 1:1 ... He is really of the line of David according to the flesh,
... was really born of a virgin,
Smyr. 1:2 ... He was really nailed to the cross in the flesh for our sake
Smyr. 2:1 All these sufferings, ... He suffered really,
.. as He also really raised Himself from the dead.
It is not as some unbelievers say, who maintain that His suffering was a make-believe.
Smyr. 3:1 For myself, I know and believe that He was in the flesh even after the Resurrection.
Smyr. 3:2 And when He came to Peter and Peter’s companions, He said to them: “Here; feel me and see that I am not a bodiless ghost.”
Smyr. 3:3 ... He ate and drank with them like a being of flesh and blood, ...
Smyr. 5:2 ... Really, what good does anyone do me if he praises me, but blasphemes my Lord by not admitting that He carried living flesh about Him?


So the whole point is that these heretics denied Christ coming in the flesh. Therefore there would be no reason to recognize that the bread represents the flesh of His physical body.

No, that is NOT a plain reading of the text.

“They [heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ which suffered four our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes” (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Symrnaeans Ch. VII).

The heretics abstain from the Eucharist BECAUSE the do not believe the Eucharist to be the flesh of Christ.

And:
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ . . . and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3)

Only when you twist them and rip them out of context.

Sorry, you are the one doing so. You read the ECF through the lens of the 17th century.

 

[cjab]

No. Sorry. You are rewriting history here. Trent is in a line of Councils. You make it sound like Catholic Church started at Trent, which is anachronistic.

I think it is not untrue to say that the modern Catholic church did effectively start at Trent.

The Catholic church today isn't the same as it was back in the 4th century, even if some of its errors had already crystalized. For a start celibacy of bishops wasn't enforced as it is today. That much at least is clear.

George T. Dennis SJ of Catholic University of America says: "There is simply no clear evidence of a general tradition or practice, much less of an obligation, of priestly celibacy-continence before the beginning of the fourth century." Peter Fink SJ agrees, saying that underlying premises used in the book, Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, "would not stand up so comfortably to historical scrutiny". Dennis says this book provides no evidence that celibacy had apostolic origins.

Similarly, Philippe Delhaye wrote: "During the first three or four centuries, no law was promulgated prohibiting clerical marriage. Celibacy was a matter of choice for bishops, priests, and deacons. ... The apostolic constitutions (c. 400) excommunicated a priest or bishop who left his wife 'under pretense of piety' (Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio 1:51)."

Clerical celibacy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There was no "pope" at the time of Nicaea. It is inappropriate to suggest that the Roman Catholic church is founded on the canons of Nicaea to the exclusion of any other denomination. Any church in the whole world has a similar claim. The RCC has no exclusive right to defer to the Nicaean canons, any more than to assert possession of the Petrine keys.

Do you deny the Trinity is valid?

I have issue with your human philosophy; not with what is written in the bible.

I grant that Christian thinkers grow in understanding on truths that were known in part by earlier Christians. A tree goes through different phases of growth, from acorn to fully grown tree. In all phases it is still a tree.

So do philosophers grow in their philosophies. Whether the RCC has grown in respect of holiness and knowledge of God is another matter.

I am explicitly stating that philosophical language was needed to help define orthodox concepts, like the the Trinity.

I reject that contention. The early Christians deliberately engaged in philosophical pursuits to accomodate non-biblical philosophies, so as to make Christianity appear more palatable to pagans, and in that way scriptural truth became corrupted and Christianity took on a political hue.

I have no issue with this. See my comments above. Justin was a trained philosopher who used his knowledge to assist in the development of a proper understanding of the nature of Jesus.

No, they had a faith, but not a fully actuate understanding of the Trinity and nature of God. Once this was defined in Nicaea and Constantinople, understanding was achieved and all discussions ceased.

It was Constantine the Hermetist who decided on the "essence" wording of the Nicean creed thus cementing the creed as a product of Greek philosophy. There wasn't must enthusiasm from the bishops given the Synods of Antioch had already rejected the idea developed by the Monarchians and Gnostics.

I deny this whole statement as anything near to what happened in the early Church. Where are your historical sources?

I got rough figures for numbers of Christians from

Early Church Growth

A few numbers through the first few centuries from Professor Robert Louis Wilken.

www.thegospelcoalition.org

I worked out compound annual growth rate / year assuming 100 initial Christians following ministry of Jesus (including women):
30-100AD 100->10,000 = 6.8%
100-200AD 10,000->200,000 = 3.0%
200-250AD 200,000->1.25million = 3.7%
250-300AD 1.25million->6million = 2.8%

Obviously there are factors including persecutions etc to take into account. Yet it is clear that the early church unhampered by human philosophies grew at the fastest rate.

No. See the writings of Ignatius of Antioch and his condemnation of docetism.

“They [heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ which suffered four our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes” (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Symrnaeans Ch. VII).

I think this is not addressing my point. Christ's presence isn't conditional on the Eucharist itself is all I was saying, by his own words.

Are you against philosophy?

It is unnecessary for Christianity: 1 Cor 1:20 "Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?"

But why should I buy your critique?

"You" won't buy it. However you would do well to consider the true history of the RCC. Pope Alexander VI (pre-Council of Trent) is reputed to have made a pact with the devil to gain the papacy. Many were rogues. Even the present Pope condones homosexuality. Pope Francis said that "homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family. ... They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out, or be made miserable because of it." Is this what you put your faith in?

Again, why should I buy your view on these things?

My view? Where did the apostles preach things like purgatory or the petrine keys in Rome? You invented them.

 

[Anselm01]

I think it is not untrue to say that the modern Catholic church did effectively start at Trent.

This is mere opinion.

The Catholic church today isn't the same as it was back in the 4th century, even if some of its errors had already crystalized. For a start celibacy of bishops wasn't enforced as it is today. That much at least is clear.

George T. Dennis SJ of Catholic University of America says: "There is simply no clear evidence of a general tradition or practice, much less of an obligation, of priestly celibacy-continence before the beginning of the fourth century." Peter Fink SJ agrees, saying that underlying premises used in the book, Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, "would not stand up so comfortably to historical scrutiny". Dennis says this book provides no evidence that celibacy had apostolic origins.

Similarly, Philippe Delhaye wrote: "During the first three or four centuries, no law was promulgated prohibiting clerical marriage. Celibacy was a matter of choice for bishops, priests, and deacons. ... The apostolic constitutions (c. 400) excommunicated a priest or bishop who left his wife 'under pretense of piety' (Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio 1:51)."

Clerical celibacy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Our bishops can trace themselves back to the apostles. Can your pastors do the same?

Also celibacy is a discipline, not a dogma. It could change tomorrow. Question: how many apostles do we know for sure were married?

There was no "pope" at the time of Nicaea. It is inappropriate to suggest that the Roman Catholic church is founded on the canons of Nicaea to the exclusion of any other denomination. Any church in the whole world has a similar claim. The RCC has no exclusive right to defer to the Nicaean canons, any more than to assert possession of the Petrine keys.

The pope during Nicaea was St. Sylvester 1. Next...

I have issue with your human philosophy; not with what is written in the bible.

And I have issue with your errant interpretation of the Bible.

So do philosophers grow in their philosophies. Whether the RCC has grown in respect of holiness and knowledge of God is another matter.

All truth is God's truth. I can also show you numerous examples of holy people throughout the history of the Church.

I reject that contention. The early Christians deliberately engaged in philosophical pursuits to accomodate non-biblical philosophies, so as to make Christianity appear more palatable to pagans, and in that way scriptural truth became corrupted and Christianity took on a political hue.

Care to provide an example of this? Again, all truth is God's truth. If language can be used from philosophy to explain it, that is a good.

It was Constantine the Hermetist who decided on the "essence" wording of the Nicean creed thus cementing the creed as a product of Greek philosophy. There wasn't must enthusiasm from the bishops given the Synods of Antioch had already rejected the idea developed by the Monarchians and Gnostics.

Wait, are you anti-Nicene? Your arguments make is sound like you support Arius here. I could be wrong, but it does sound like that.

I got rough figures for numbers of Christians from

Early Church Growth

A few numbers through the first few centuries from Professor Robert Louis Wilken.

www.thegospelcoalition.org

I worked out compound annual growth rate / year assuming 100 initial Christians following ministry of Jesus (including women):
30-100AD 100->10,000 = 6.8%
100-200AD 10,000->200,000 = 3.0%
200-250AD 200,000->1.25million = 3.7%
250-300AD 1.25million->6million = 2.8%

Obviously there are factors including persecutions etc to take into account. Yet it is clear that the early church unhampered by human philosophies grew at the fastest rate.

I think you need to reevaluate your %s there. 6 million in 300 AD is way more than 10,000 in 100 AD. Also, as more of the population is Christian, there will be less conversions compared to a time when most people were not Christian.

I think this is not addressing my point. Christ's presence isn't conditional on the Eucharist itself is all I was saying, by his own words.

But I am saying the early Church universally accepted that it was.

It is unnecessary for Christianity: 1 Cor 1:20 "Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?"

Does this not apply to you?

"You" won't buy it. However you would do well to consider the true history of the RCC. Pope Alexander VI (pre-Council of Trent) is reputed to have made a pact with the devil to gain the papacy. Many were rogues. Even the present Pope condones homosexuality. Pope Francis said that "homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family. ... They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out, or be made miserable because of it." Is this what you put your faith in?

This is all polemical pandering. "Reputed"... Really?

My view? Where did the apostles preach things like purgatory or the petrine keys in Rome? You invented them.

You need to read Church history.

 

[cjab]

Our bishops can trace themselves back to the apostles. Can your pastors do the same?

Is God a respecter of persons? Are you asserting God's favoritism or a legalistic inheritance for your church? By what law did God establish the Roman Church? By the law of man I think. What is of men can be destroyed by men.

Whom did John The Baptist trace his lineage back to?

Eze 37:4 "Then he said to me, “Speak a prophetic message to these bones and say, ‘Dry bones, listen to the word of the LORD!"
Eze 37:5 "This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Look! I am going to put breath into you and make you live again!
Eze 37:6 "I will put flesh and muscles on you and cover you with skin. I will put breath into you, and you will come to life. Then you will know that I am the LORD.’"

"The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." John 3:8.

Also celibacy is a discipline, not a dogma. It could change tomorrow. Question: how many apostles do we know for sure were married?

It's plainly a dogma but not from the bible (from pagan religion cf. the Galli of Cybele). "A fixed, especially religious, belief or set of beliefs that people are expected to accept without any doubts."

The pope during Nicaea was St. Sylvester 1. Next...

You only now call him "THE pope." "The word 'pope' derives from Greek πάππας ('páppas'), meaning "father". In the early centuries of Christianity, this title was applied, especially in the East, to all bishops and other senior clergy, and later became reserved in the west to the bishop of Rome, a reservation made official only in the 11th century".

Pope - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And I have issue with your errant interpretation of the Bible.

Puff

All truth is God's truth. I can also show you numerous examples of holy people throughout the history of the Church.

I don't have a beef with catholics per se. For a thousand years, it was the only church in many parts of Western Europe.

Care to provide an example of this? Again, all truth is God's truth. If language can be used from philosophy to explain it, that is a good.

The Trinity doctrine eventually came to be modelled on neo-platonist concepts, of gods begetting gods of the substance. Justin Martyr was a pre-eminent apologist for Greek philosophy and always seeking to blend the two. See "Justin Martyr and the Restoration of Philosophy" Droge. Female Christian virginity was modelled on the Roman cult of the vestal virgins.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=studiaantiqua

Wait, are you anti-Nicene? Your arguments make is sound like you support Arius here. I could be wrong, but it does sound like that.

Arius is the bugbear of Trinitarianism as is also Sabellianism. Trinitarianism strives to disassociate itself from Arianism and from Sabellianism, but in fact betrays elements of both Arianism (begotteness in heaven) and Sabellianism (homoousia).

As I do not maintain the Logos was created (or begotten) I am not an Arian. As I do not maintain the application of the word "homoousia" to God I am not a Sabellian.

I think you need to reevaluate your %s there. 6 million in 300 AD is way more than 10,000 in 100 AD. Also, as more of the population is Christian, there will be less conversions compared to a time when most people were not Christian.

There were still only a small minority of Christians even in 300AD. (6 million was only 10% of the population). If Christianity had remained uncorrupted, one could have supposed far more would have been converted. I suspect rates of conversion increased post Constantine when laws made Christianity mandatory and the pagan temples were physically torn down, but as I suggested, then the element of legal compulsion crept in which makes stats difficult to grasp.

One feels that even by Nicea and the rise of Arianism, the intellectual life of the church was being stifled by "heresies from within" and its entrapment by alien philosophies resulting in alleged Christians spending much of the time persecuting each other (e.g. excommunication of the Nestorians). As Christ said "A house divided within itself will fall" and fall it did to Islam.

But I am saying the early Church universally accepted that it was.

Well, the words of Christ speak for themselves. So I doubt what you say is true in an exclusive manner.

Does this not apply to you?

What philosophy are you accusing me of? What philosopher am I a votary of?

This is all polemical pandering. "Reputed"... Really?

I only said "reputed" because you like to argue the toss. Actually the authority is good for what this Pope muttered on his deathbed is very good and from contemporary accounts of trustworthy persons. https://www.jstor.org/stable/751400

However your little quibble suggests a naive attitude. You can't conceal his sins. And yet you cite him and other wicked popes as part of the apostolic succession? Unbelievable. May be you should start to deal with the hypocrisy with your church instead of acting like it didn't matter.

You need to read Church history.

You need to stop trusting in men.

 

[Anselm01]

Is God a respecter of persons? Are you asserting God's favoritism or a legalistic inheritance for your church? By what law did God establish the Roman Church? By the law of man I think. What is of men can be destroyed by men.

Whom did John The Baptist trace his lineage back to?

Eze 37:4 "Then he said to me, “Speak a prophetic message to these bones and say, ‘Dry bones, listen to the word of the LORD!"
Eze 37:5 "This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Look! I am going to put breath into you and make you live again!
Eze 37:6 "I will put flesh and muscles on you and cover you with skin. I will put breath into you, and you will come to life. Then you will know that I am the LORD.’"

"The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." John 3:8.

So, the answer is you have no ties to the apostles. Understood.

It's plainly a dogma but not from the bible (from pagan religion cf. the Galli of Cybele). "A fixed, especially religious, belief or set of beliefs that people are expected to accept without any doubts."

It is not a dogma. Again, how many apostles were married? If they were single, were they also pagan?

You only now call him "THE pope." "The word 'pope' derives from Greek πάππας ('páppas'), meaning "father". In the early centuries of Christianity, this title was applied, especially in the East, to all bishops and other senior clergy, and later became reserved in the west to the bishop of Rome, a reservation made official only in the 11th century".

Pope - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Pope is only one term for the bishop of Rome. I have no issue with other Patriarchs using the term.

Puff

Yep, that is what it is. A mere interpretation.

I don't have a beef with catholics per se. For a thousand years, it was the only church in many parts of Western Europe.

It was and still is the Church.

The Trinity doctrine eventually came to be modelled on neo-platonist concepts, of gods begetting gods of the substance. Justin Martyr was a pre-eminent apologist for Greek philosophy and always seeking to blend the two. See "Justin Martyr and the Restoration of Philosophy" Droge. Female Christian virginity was modelled on the Roman cult of the vestal virgins.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=studiaantiqua

Do you deny the Trinitarian dogmas?

Arius is the bugbear of Trinitarianism as is also Sabellianism. Trinitarianism strives to disassociate itself from Arianism and from Sabellianism, but in fact betrays elements of both Arianism (begotteness in heaven) and Sabellianism (homoousia).
As I do not maintain the Logos was created (or begotten) I am not an Arian. As I do not maintain the application of the word "homoousia" to God I am not a Sabellian.

Again, are you not a Trinitarian?

There were still only a small minority of Christians even in 300AD. (6 million was only 10% of the population). If Christianity had remained uncorrupted, one could have supposed far more would have been converted. I suspect rates of conversion increased post Constantine when laws made Christianity mandatory and the pagan temples were physically torn down, but as I suggested, then the element of legal compulsion crept in which makes stats difficult to grasp.

Then why bring up the numbers?

One feels that even by Nicea and the rise of Arianism, the intellectual life of the church was being stifled by "heresies from within" and its entrapment by alien philosophies resulting in alleged Christians spending much of the time persecuting each other (e.g. excommunication of the Nestorians). As Christ said "A house divided within itself will fall" and fall it did to Islam.

Definitions were needed and God provided.

Well, the words of Christ speak for themselves. So I doubt what you say is true in an exclusive manner.

Yes, "this is my body" are very clear.

What philosophy are you accusing me of? What philosopher am I a votary of?

Skepticism.

I only said "reputed" because you like to argue the toss. Actually the authority is good for what this Pope muttered on his deathbed is very good and from contemporary accounts of trustworthy persons. https://www.jstor.org/stable/751400

Hearsay.

However your little quibble suggests a naive attitude. You can't conceal his sins. And yet you cite him and other wicked popes as part of the apostolic succession? Unbelievable. May be you should start to deal with the hypocrisy with your church instead of acting like it didn't matter.

I have never claimed any pope was holy, nor that some were not hypocrites. God is faithful despite our weaknesses.

You need to stop trusting in men.

Well, that means I cannot trust you, either... What am I to do?...

Now, back to the OP.

 

[cjab]

So, the answer is you have no ties to the apostles. Understood.

And what are "your" ties?

It is not a dogma. Again, how many apostles were married? If they were single, were they also pagan?

We are told some of them were married but we are not told that they repudiated their wives.

Pope is only one term for the bishop of Rome. I have no issue with other Patriarchs using the term.

I do. Matthew 23:9 "And do not call anyone on earth your father."

Yep, that is what it is. A mere interpretation.

Your interpretation?

It was and still is the Church.

No-one appointed Rome to rule the world, and it doesn't. It rules Vatican city.

Do you deny the Trinitarian dogmas?

God's dogmas or Man's dogmas?

Again, are you not a Trinitarian?

I may be, or may be not. Depends on whether you define it in biblical or philosophical terms.

Then why bring up the numbers?

You asked for evidence. Now you've got it, you're still criticizing me.

Definitions were needed and God provided.

The house was conquered. Everywhere where these christological debates took place was given over to Islam. What futility arguing over philosophies. Philosophy never saved anyone.

Yes, "this is my body" are very clear.

Christ also said he was "bread from heaven," and "the good shepherd" and the "vine." Does this mean he was a piece of bread, a vine and a shepherd?

Skepticism.

Over the bible or over RCC claims to global supremacy? If over the bible, what are you specifically accusing me of?

Hearsay.

I have never claimed any pope was holy, nor that some were not hypocrites. God is faithful despite our weaknesses.

I see. So you would allow murderers and adulterers and liars and even homosexuals (Pope Julius III) as your pontifs. Enough said.

Well, that means I cannot trust you, either... What am I to do?...

Trust what the spirit and the bible (i.e. God) says. Christ alone is the object of faith, not the RCC.

 

[Manfred]

Do you think the canons of Nicaea bears a resemblance to 1 Cor 5? Are you stating that belief in the Trinity is a non-essential?

I see no non-essential views that currently divide Protestants listed above. Where are the verses on church governance as a non-essential? Where are the verses on eschatology as non-essential? How about Calvinism vs Arminianism? As far as the Eucharist goes, the Church has had a consistent view on Christ's presence that does not allow for the denial of it to be a "personal belief."

Again, Jewish ritual is not an issue among Protestants. Also, the Church since the beginning has viewed these days in light of the 4th Commandment.

So, by this reasoning I can pick any wealthy Protestant church and be just as uncharitable.... Also, are you familiar with the one greatest charitable institution on early? Here is a hint: the Catholic Church.

Sorry, I think this was a typo on the part of the person I was originally replying to.

But:
Do you consider it a crutch to ask your Christian friends and pastor to pray for you?
Do you think you will die holy?
God can make holy anything He wants, even you.
1 Corinthians 2:2.
Second Council of Nicaea.
Mathew 16:19
John 6
Hebrews 10.

Your OP is based on a false premise.

You think the RCC is the bride of Christ.
You claim succession, yet Paul would not have associated with the Borgia Pope for example, yet you believe Paul or for that matter Jesus Christ would have approved him as the representative of Jesus Christ on earth.

It is illogical how your claim your tradition trumps divinely inspired scripture, looking at the horrible history of your so called Popes.

Therefore the RCC can be discounted as being the Church, they consist of nothing more than idolaters who revere Mary above all and treat her as Co mediatrix, and sinless. All made up nonsense that you devour with relish and claim it was passed on through corrupt popes like the Borgia pope.

 

[Anselm01]

Your OP is based on a false premise.

You think the RCC is the bride of Christ.
You claim succession, yet Paul would not have associated with the Borgia Pope for example, yet you believe Paul or for that matter Jesus Christ would have approved him as the representative of Jesus Christ on earth.

It is illogical how your claim your tradition trumps divinely inspired scripture, looking at the horrible history of your so called Popes.

Therefore the RCC can be discounted as being the Church, they consist of nothing more than idolaters who revere Mary above all and treat her as Co mediatrix, and sinless. All made up nonsense that you devour with relish and claim it was passed on through corrupt popes like the Borgia pope.

So, what you are saying is that the Church is required to submit to your interpretation of Scripture. Understood.

 

[Manfred]

So, what you are saying is that the Church is required to submit to your interpretation of Scripture. Understood.

Not what I said at all. That would be another false premise, and strawman of your own design.

I am saying in light of scripture Like 1 Cor 5, that Paul would most certainly not entertain someone like the Borgia Pope as being in succession to Peter, nor would Christ condone him as being His representative on earth.

Your claim to being the Church is succession, which is in light of the evidence logically is shown to be bunk.

There was no talk of my interpretation of scripture.

There are however passages that explicitly say to live by the Spirit. Surely you don't think the Spirit incompetent to reveal the truth in scripture to you, or do you need second hand revelation and secondhand relationship through your precious Mary to be SEEN or to be perceived as Christian.

The Church that Jesus and not your popes is building, is alive and well, and every born again believer throughout the world is in His Church.

 

[Anselm01]

And what are "your" ties?

Apostolic succession.

We are told some of them were married but we are not told that they repudiated their wives.

"We are told"...? Please provide a list and the source of that list of all apostles who were married.

I do. Matthew 23:9 "And do not call anyone on earth your father."

Do you call your father "father" or "dad"? That verse was about humility of leaders, not that we are not to call our fathers "fathers." You are misinterpreting.

Your interpretation?

Yes, our interpretations are mere interpretations. And by this I mean our interpretations are binding on NO ONE.

No-one appointed Rome to rule the world, and it doesn't. It rules Vatican city.

Non sequitur.

God's dogmas or Man's dogmas?

The Church's dogmas are God's dogmas.

I may be, or may be not. Depends on whether you define it in biblical or philosophical terms.

Thank you for admitting that you are the final say on what is and is not truly "biblical."

You asked for evidence. Now you've got it, you're still criticizing me.

The evidence you provided of circumstantial.

The house was conquered. Everywhere where these christological debates took place was given over to Islam. What futility arguing over philosophies. Philosophy never saved anyone.

There was also debate in Rome and that was never conquered by Islam. I call anachronism.

Christ also said he was "bread from heaven," and "the good shepherd" and the "vine." Does this mean he was a piece of bread, a vine and a shepherd?

There is allegorical language in the bible. John 6 is not one of those times.

Over the bible or over RCC claims to global supremacy? If over the bible, what are you specifically accusing me of?

I am not accusing you of anything. You are the final authority in all things "biblical," so you have the final say.

I see. So you would allow murderers and adulterers and liars and even homosexuals (Pope Julius III) as your pontifs. Enough said.

Jesus promised there would be wheat and tares.

Trust what the spirit and the bible (i.e. God) says. Christ alone is the object of faith, not the RCC.

But this understanding comes through interpretation. You are asking me to accept your understanding over that of the Church. But you are a man, so by your own standard, I cannot accept it. Sorry.

 

[RiJoRi]

I have never claimed any pope was holy, nor that some were not hypocrites. God is faithful despite our weaknesses.

You may not have so claimed; however the popes do have the title of "Holy Father"!

 

[Arch Stanton]

I do. Matthew 23:9 "And do not call anyone on earth your father."

1Thess 2:11 As you know, we treated each one of you as a father treats his children,

1 Cor 4:15 Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

1 Jn 2:13-14 I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning.

I am writing to you, young men, because you have conquered the evil one.

I write to you, children, because you know the Father.

I write to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning.

I write to you, young men, because you are strong and the word of God remains in you, and you have conquered the evil one.​

Job 29:16 I was a father to the poor; the complaint of the stranger I pursued

Gen 45:8 So it was not really you but God who had me come here; and he has made me a father to Pharaoh, lord of all his household, and ruler over the whole land of Egypt.

2 Kg 2:12 and Elisha saw it happen. He cried out, “My father! my father! Israel’s chariot and steeds!” Then he saw him no longer.

2 Kg 6:21 When the king of Israel saw them, he asked, “Shall I kill them, my father? Shall I kill them?”

Rom 9:10 And not only that, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one husband, our father Isaac

Acts 7:2 And he replied, “My brothers and fathers, listen. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham while he was in Mesopotamia, before he had settled in Haran

** Acts 7:2-53 (Saint Stephen says father 17 times)

 

[Anselm01]

Not what I said at all. That would be another false premise, and strawman of your own design.

Did you not write:
"It is illogical how your claim your tradition trumps divinely inspired scripture, looking at the horrible history of your so called Popes."

By stating my "tradition" trumps Scripture, you are really stating that your tradition (interpretation of Scripture) trumps the Catholic Church's understanding of Scripture. Therefore, you believe the Church should submit to your understanding of Scripture.

I am saying in light of scripture Like 1 Cor 5, that Paul would most certainly not entertain someone like the Borgia Pope as being in succession to Peter, nor would Christ condone him as being His representative on earth.

I get what you are saying. But I am saying God can work through even flawed vessels. In fact, He has only flawed vessels to work with, sadly...

Your claim to being the Church is succession, which is in light of the evidence logically is shown to be bunk.

Succession has nothing to do with how holy or unholy the successor is. They should all be holy, but as stated above, God can use flawed vessels.

There was no talk of my interpretation of scripture.

Most of your post is an interpretation of Scripture (and history).

There are however passages that explicitly say to live by the Spirit. Surely you don't think the Spirit incompetent to reveal the truth in scripture to you, or do you need second hand revelation and secondhand relationship through your precious Mary to be SEEN or to be perceived as Christian.

Is there a Scripture that explicitly states that only the Scripture teaches what is revelated truth?

The Church that Jesus and not your popes is building, is alive and well, and every born again believer throughout the world is in His Church.

Is there a Bible verse that explicitly states this?

 

[cjab]

1Thess 2:11 As you know, we treated each one of you as a father treats his children,

1 Cor 4:15 Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

1 Jn 2:13-14 I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning.

I am writing to you, young men, because you have conquered the evil one.

I write to you, children, because you know the Father.

I write to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning.

I write to you, young men, because you are strong and the word of God remains in you, and you have conquered the evil one.​

Job 29:16 I was a father to the poor; the complaint of the stranger I pursued

Gen 45:8 So it was not really you but God who had me come here; and he has made me a father to Pharaoh, lord of all his household, and ruler over the whole land of Egypt.

2 Kg 2:12 and Elisha saw it happen. He cried out, “My father! my father! Israel’s chariot and steeds!” Then he saw him no longer.

2 Kg 6:21 When the king of Israel saw them, he asked, “Shall I kill them, my father? Shall I kill them?”

Rom 9:10 And not only that, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one husband, our father Isaac

Acts 7:2 And he replied, “My brothers and fathers, listen. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham while he was in Mesopotamia, before he had settled in Haran

** Acts 7:2-53 (Saint Stephen says father 17 times)

I find in all the examples above that there is only one reference to "father" in a Christ-centric sense, in the New Testament, 1 Cor 4:15; but Paul never asked anyone to call him father.

The Stephen reference to "fathers and brothers" seems to have alluded to his audience status as Jewish elders, officials and priestly representatives of Old Testament YHWH, cf. Elisha.

In the old testament, the Son-Father relation wasn't ever disclosed.

So I find nothing in what you say licensing the Pope to usurp Christ's words.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

What should be the outcome when there is a conflict or disagreement between “the church” and the “individual" about what Scripture teaches? Should the individual submit to the church's interpretation of Scripture or should the church submit to the individual interpretation of Scripture? Or should the individual leave the church if no agreement can be reached?

Basically "Theologians" specialize in the art of generating Theological CONFUSION, and in some cases religious organizations are organized around specific confusions.

To fabricate a doctrine:
1) See something in Scripture, and form an opinion about what it says.
2) Go through the Bible and collect all the passages that appear to SUPPORT your opinion. Catalog them as your "Proof Texts".
3) Go through the Bible and collect all the passages that appear to refute your opinion. Catalog them as your "Problem Texts".
4) Create viable rationalizations for your "Problem Texts", so that they are "properly understood" to not disagree with your "Proof Texts".
5) GO ahead and teach your opinion as Biblical TRUTH to whomever will listen.
6) When enough people take your opinion(s) seriously, you've got a denomination!!!!

Simple as that.

 

[Arch Stanton]

I find in all the examples above that there is only one reference to "father" in a Christ-centric sense, in the New Testament, 1 Cor 4:15; but Paul never asked anyone to call him father.

Matt 23:8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers.

That was one verse earlier.... I have been a history 'teacher' for over 30 years.

James 3:1 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you realize that we will be judged more strictly,

Eph 4:11 And he gave some as apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers