Apostolic or Baptist

The Apostolic's (I use Apostolics referring to Catholic and Orthodox) have better legitimacy and history but the Baptists seem to have better Biblical reasoning for their positions. Is there anything I should read on this topic to help me come to a conclusion, except the Bible, I am reading that already. Help.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (582x784, 589.6K)

Other urls found in this thread:

traditionalcatholicpriest.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Dogmas-Of-The-Faith.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saeculum_obscurum
web.archive.org/web/20120307153427/http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/dialogue-with-others/ecumenical/orthodox/filioque-church-dividing-issue-english.cfm
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

...

I would go to a church for each one (a Baptist, Catholic, or Orthodox one) and see how you feel then. Have faith in the Holy Spirit to guide you to where you should be. What you're going to hear here is another debate about apostolic succession and the like.

Are you inclined to think that Christ left us a living, persistent Church that has a historical presence and is able to help us understand our religion and interpret scripture? So we don't diverge in hundreds/thousands of sects?

Or are you inclined to think that Christ just gave us a book and left us to our own devices to interpret it in potentially hundreds/thousands of different ways?

Do you want to pick a church that is just as old as your religion, or a church that is younger than your religion? Consider these things and pray about them.

Do you believe in Christ or in your belief of Christ?

Lord all these answers are terrible.

Read the Apostolic Fathers. Specifically the Letter of Ignatius and the Diadace. You need the mass and communion as much as you need the word which is the Bible since the death of the Apostles.

There is an easy way to settle this. Let's build a time machine and go back to first century Rome to see if Christians looked more like Apostolics or Catholics. Oh wait, we don't need to, we have the letters of the Church Fathers. And they all talk and worship like Apostolics. Sorry Prots, nice try.

Both Catholic and Orthodox have altered their doctrine over time

Yes, that is true. But who has altered the most and for what reasons?

No they don't.

Any examples of the Catholic changing doctrine?

Why not choose a church which does not shun either the biblical gospel or the ancient practice of infant baptism?

So the Reformed?
:^)

Precisely :)

Attached: infant baptism.png (797x634, 888.37K)

I guess you could say that it would be totally depraved of me not to elect to join them.

Source?

Yes. Except Orthodox.

The Pope is the head of the church
We new Rome now
OK Pope you are the boss again and the filioque thing was a meme after all
Submits to the people and political leaders of the time and reject the council of Florence.

Nah, just subtle fallacies.

Attached: UgoAnon.jpg (443x583, 27.17K)

I like how all the answers in this thread are:

at the end of the day, apostolics happily contradict the bible through many of their false teachings. Paul warned in his epistles of false prophets in his time, and that's all these apostolics are, crypto-pharisee cults hijacking the grace given by God, to grace given by "Church".

1 Timothy 4:1-3

1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Attached: papistteachings.PNG (483x487, 456.9K)

And yet user, in Acts, we clearly see a visible Church and one that is not Baptist. Sola Scriptura is a self-defeating argument that does not take into account how scripture was formed and decided on, not to mention how Protestants blatantly took out several books.

Get a KJV and start studying to avoid these kinds of double-think fallacies.

Vatican 2

Theyvalsobwoukd execute people for translating the Bible don't care anymore

Actually popes, even the reformers' opponents, didn't view the apocryphal books as scripture until the council of trent (although they did find them very wise, as did luther and Calvin).
Have you ever wonder why the Christian scriptures are called "canon" when the apocryphal books are titled "deuterocanonical", which means second canon?

buh

Attached: PeterIsTheRock.png (1794x547, 259.54K)

An incredibly vague statement and a completely false one? C'mon guys, you can do better

Please tell us which of the 255 infallible dogmas did VII change, or are you jut talking out of your ass?


ftfy.

Thanks for proving protestantism if the work of the devil

Btw is there any kind of list that compiled all the dogmas?

Rome has undergone far more change than Orthodoxy.

Source:
Your ass

I found this one a while ago.
traditionalcatholicpriest.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Dogmas-Of-The-Faith.pdf
It's all 255 infallible Truths, plus some others that haven't been defined yet.

Thank you user

You're right, user.
That's why we should return to the Biblical and Apostolic form of Church government: a council of elders (presbyters) instead of having monarchial episcopacies.

Exactly user.
I looked on Google for some denomination just like that. Those guys live in Rome or something. Worth to check it out.

wew lad

Wait are you telling me the bishops of the Catholic Church are elected because they are the sons of previous Bishops? Wow thanks for warning me user.

Yeah I've heard of a church that their bishops are the successors of the Apostles, and they have their councils, but they must be heretics right?

...

You are aware that the "monarchial" in "monarchial episcopacy" refers to the fact that only one person is ruling the local church government as opposed to a multiplicity of elders.
Has nothing to do with hereditary succession, my man.
Unless you're talking about that time the popes had kids and they became popes, too.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saeculum_obscurum
Would you be talking about the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, or Syriac Church of the East?

THE . BIBLE . ISN'T . EVERYTHING

No, it's not everything.
It's sufficient.

Attached: 20376007_1787956501222298_5994694704869795633_n.jpg (814x960, 92.55K)

Are we really so prideful that we would try and split the church over a disagreement about something like this. Are Catholics and Orthodox even that different. I mean really the early church had tons of different doctrine among them and they were still considered in communion are we different enough to not be in communion or are we secretly in communion but no one will admit it. Lord help us all the more I read about the schism the dumber it sounds.

Attached: jesus.jpg (358x358, 17.6K)

As a protestant, I don't know how to feel about this. I understand the significance of communion but I don't believe that you need communion to be saved. I understand the significance of having one Church of Christ but I don't believe in the heresies that the Pope and the Catholic Church in general believes in.

My greatest fear is being told by our Lord that I never knew him. That's why I rely so heavily on the Bible; because I don't want to follow in the doctrines of men. May God reveal everything in the end and I will pray that those who seek the truth will find it.

Attached: Larp.png (900x720, 633.13K)

according to whom? you and your interpretation? Protestantism has no dogmas that are set in stone, everyone believes what they want, there is no "heresy" in protestantism.

What heresies do you think we believe in?

The Eucharist has been a part of the church since the Apostles. The Apostles literally spoke the bible there was no bible and Jesus at no point said hey guys write this down. If the Apostles said hey eat this bread and drink this wine it is the blood and body then it is probably true.

On a number of issues, yes we are. The Filioque is not just some different wording, but sets up a completely different understanding of the Trinity.

Are you reformed?
Or are you semi-popish?

True but I guess where I fall on the issue is both sides are being to prideful in assuming they have the right to separate the church over an argument about the mysteries of God. I mean we essentially believe in the trinity it not like one side is saying there is only God and the Son or straight up heresy. I could be wrong but anyway what are some of the other issues we disagree on I am curious.

Worse they removed several books from the OT and were going to remove some from the NT until Luther's own followers threatened to kick his heretical ass out. Specifically the parts about DON'T separate the Church over petty arguments and disagreements. Also adding "alone" to a certain verse the quote until they are blue in the face.

The nature of sin and salvation, the immaculate conception, worship of the Eucharist, and the delay of communion from some baptized members. Those are just a few off the top of my head.

Even among Catholics people disagree I don't think that would really warrant a schism.

Explain this one a little more.

As long as you believe it is actually the body and blood I don't think it is a problem. Unless there is something I don't know.

That's nothing.

Like I said even in the early Church there were disagreements on different matters but it didn't take them out of communion with each other only VERY heretical things would do that. Anyway I am just curious I don't really know a lot about the Orthodox.

We do not believe in the Immaculate Conception, and it has a bit to do with the way we both understand sin. Original vs Ancestral. The worship of the Eucharist is what is done by Catholics in adoration chapels, where the Eucharist is worshiped. Having a delayed communion from baptized members sets up different types of Christians. In Orthodoxy, you are either a Christian entitled to communion or you are not, no different degrees. These are just a few things, and while they seem small, both sides have an established theology behind them.

Yeah I could see how that would be a tough one to get by to be fair it was only dogmatized on our side because we had a miracle where Mary told us that though think of that what you will.

Not even going to try opening that can of worms.

True but that is because we believe it is the actual living presence of Jesus Christ. Though very very few Catholics actual go and worship the Eucharist outside of Communion I actually didn't even know this was a thing though from what I did find it dates all the way back to the 1st century.

So this is kind of complicated we essentially believe the same thing the difference is you allow them to eat bread but it isn't the Eucharist I am paraphrasing but anyway in a Catholic Church we don't have that if you can't have Communion you sit on your hands and get nothing or a blessing from the priest. It gets even more complicated though because TECHNICALLY a Catholic can receive Communion in an Orthodox Church and vice versa

In practice this basically never happens for obvious reason but Catholic man is dying and wants last rites performed an Orthodox priest can do it and it is all good. That would be the only time it would come up.

Daily reminder that Leo III did really supported the filioque doctrine, but didn't want to include in the creed not to hurt Easterners feelings.

Acts 16:7
And when they were come into Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia: and the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not.

Philippians 1:19
For I know that this shall fall out to me unto salvation, through your prayer and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ,

MUH IT PROCEEDS FROM THE FATHER ONLY

Attached: PRIMUS_INTER_PARES.jpg (739x820, 96.58K)

lol those papal pranks eh?

Not my fault you guys are sensitive as winnie the pooh.
Source:
web.archive.org/web/20120307153427/http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/dialogue-with-others/ecumenical/orthodox/filioque-church-dividing-issue-english.cfm
It's signed as well by your orthodox friends.

I don't have any solid denomination that I adhere to. I used to call myself Calvinist but I don't believe in everything that Calvinism says.

Consider Begome Orthodox or Submit to Rome.

Well that makes you a bit un-protestant does it not?
What heresies? There are so many prots denom. and each teches "heresy is something I dislike because muh my interpretation of scripture" How can prots seriously even use the term heresy? First there has to be some dogma, then there can be heresy.
Look I don't want to hammer you down. I think that if you're interested in Catholicism and you find yourself in agreement in some areas you SHOULD get the look from catholic perspective. I am sorry but Prots will tell you "those caths worship Mary as God" "They worship statues" and other BS. Also then there's the unpopular thing - the authority. One has to submit to authority, one may no longer claim "muh my interpretation of scripture. But that's how it goes.
Also>>682979

begome gadolig

What issues are you having with Calvinism?
If it's the Real Presence, Reformed theology acknowledges it albeit it's mystical, not literal.

Heretical and gay

Y-you, too

Done. Also sums up non catholics pretty well.

He literally said that he did it out of respect for the council fathers.
He and most previous popes couldn't care less about Easterners feelings, since they believed they were the supreme head of the Church and had to be followed in everything anyway.