Protestants and Baptists, how do you respond to this?

>Then the fear of the law is chanted, and the grace of the prophets is known, and the faith of the gospels is established, and the tradition of the Apostles is preserved, and the grace of the Church exults; which grace if you grieve not Diognetus 11:6, 130 A.D.

Attached: 1019690476.jpg (1000x541, 65.51K)

We do not repudiate the concept of tradition

Then why disagree with the tradition of apostolic succession among other things?

Because it is against the the teaching of holy scripture, which possesses greater authority than the traditions of men, and corrects them, to ensure their orthodoxy.

Why would the tradition of the apostles contradict the teachings of the apostles? If someone says "this is a tradition of the apostles," but it contradicts their actual writings, it's not a tradition of the apostles! And it's definitely not a tradition of the apostles if it's just made by some guy 1000 years after the apostles who claims some barely tenable connection to them

The problem is that people have a lot of their own ways of "interpreting" scripture based on their own ignorance and bad will. I don't think making every bible reading Christian his own pope was a step up from having a single pope. The entire purpose of the church is to maintain correct interpretation of the scriptures and revelation

...

And will not proper use of scripture correct this problem?

proper use of scripture is in the context of the church, it's not private interpretation. This might come off as "putting church above scriptures" from a protestant perspective, but it's simply acknowledging that a historical consensus on what the scriptures mean is going to be more accurate then your own atomized interpretation. If you study the history of the church and all the heresies that have come and gone (all still exist in different forms), you'll understand why the idea that Christ instituted a church makes sense.

We don't recognize that as divinely inspired. Personally I wouldn't say it is or isn't.

I meant treating the bible with respect and studiously seeking to find its intended meaning, not twisting it in the way the man in the funny hat says to
Because that's exactly what it is
Yeah, like that Jesus guy, sticking to his own private interpretation instead of the tradition of the elders that the Jewish Catholic Church has always believed
Jesus instituted a church, just not a multinational corporation. You see, papism is itself a historical heresy

You're not meant to study the Bible on its own, nor do you have any authority to proclaim any teaching on your own.


Jesus Christ built a Church upon St. Peter, and gave it the authority to loose and bind on what is on Heaven and Earth. What is the authority to "loose and bind" on Heaven and Earth? Do you know what it is?

The Church teaches Scripture is a co-equal pillar of Tradition (teachings of the Apostles, which is also in the Scripture), and the Magisterium, which is established by Christ and has the authority to loose and bind on Heaven and Earth.


You're denying Jesus Christ when you deny His authority, which He bestowed upon His Apostles.


A material, physical Church, that has existed for 2,000 years. Get in the Ark or drown.

No, I mean the universal apostolic church which still exists, these churches are called Orthodox churches, they still exist and have consistently maintained the original faith

You're not Jesus, he had that authority because he was the Jewish messiah and God incarnate, why do you think he instructed his apostles to preserve his sabbath and spread the faith instead of just giving everyone a bible?

Yes, you are. You're not meant to insert your traditions into His word
Maybe someone ought to tell the magisterium that, they claim to reveal doctrine of themselves. I proclaim nothing but what was already proclaimed by God in His word.
This devious error exposes the anti-Christian nature of popery, since it everywhere replaces Jesus Christ with the person of the pope, even as to whom the Christian religion is built upon.
It is certainly not as you believe the power to permit and dispense with the divinely revealed teachings at will, to the contrary, the true Church is ever in submission to God. But the keys were given communally to the Church as a whole, and bestow the power of the gospel in evangelism and church discipline as was explained by our Lord respectively in John 20:20-23 "When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.' And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld'" and Matthew 18:15-18 "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven".
Yes, that is what your so-called church teaches, and it is a rank blapshemy, how accursed are they who pretend to place their words on equal level with God's.
The various justifications for the pope's pretense to make himself equal with God can always unsurprisingly enough be traced back to the pope's claim itself. For, how is it known that God bestowed upon the pope of Rome the absolute power to bind the conscience of men? Why from the infallible magisterium, which derives its infallible authority from its union to the pope, who embodies it, or from the apostolic tradition, which is known because it is defined and exposited with papal consent, or from the scripture, which is compiled and interpreted by the pope. Like all human cults, it's gotten caught in a feedback loop, where the deceived slaves have been tricked into thinking the cult leader has absolute authority over them, just because he said so.
Says it.

You're missing the point, which is that applying your logic consistently would force us to condemn Jesus had we lived at that time.

Not necessarily, his proof was in the pudding, the pharisees who condemned him did so out of badwill. It also wouldn't be wrong to condemn someone who was a false prophet, because not everyone who claims to be God has the authority to back it up.

Not in Mark 7, He truly was contradicting the tradition of the elders, which is why He proceeded to attack that tradition

And what church gave you the scriptures?


Why do protestants always mention this boogieman. The traditions that are passed down this the papal see contain the interpretations of the bible, once you understand that, you'll releaze there are no ecclesiastical contradictions.

no
we get the traditions from the apostles

the magisterium claims to be guided by the Holy Spirit, you claim to be guided by ???


so Jesus Christ lied?


quit larping

Some protestant denoms claim their own apostolic succession
we can put people in funny hats and call people bishops too

you gotta get sent by the Church bro, who called you

The Presbyterian church. They came from God however.
Sure, reinterpret the real contradictions out of the bible and it won't contradict anymore. It also won't be the full counsel of God anymore, either.

yes
Says your church.
Yes, and since the basis of this claim is themselves, it's worthless
I'm not inspired by anything, God stopped sending revelation with the death of the last apostle, I just repeat what He once said in scripture.
No
no u

20Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. 21For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

st.peter/holy spirit: no


14Whereunto also he hath called you by our gospel, unto the purchasing of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

st. paul/holy spirit: it's our traditions


what is the pentecost bro


And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Didnt Catholicism schism basically at its very beginning? How do you know you have the proper apostolic succession considering how early you guys split up into 3 churches? What if greek orthodox or eastern orthodox is the real apostolic succession?

no, orthodox schismed at 1,000 year mark.


that's not actually the issue, the Catholic church recognizes the orthodox still maintain valid apostolic succession

wait wait… so catholics claim there are multiple apostolic successions? thats confusing… Seems about as valid as those protestant churches apostolic successions when it comes down to it.

This is about inscripturation and the fact holy scripture is not of human origin (ironically, in gross contradiction to the Romish claim that scripture derives its authority and inspiration from the church). This is why he says "holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost" which does not make sense if he is talking about personal bible study.
I'm afraid there's nothing about your tradition here. In fact, given he identifies these traditions as "our gospel", your church anathematized this tradition. >what is the pentecost bro
The outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon God's people.
It is certainly not as you believe the power to permit and dispense with the divinely revealed teachings at will, to the contrary, the true Church is ever in submission to God. But the keys were given communally to the Church as a whole, and bestow the power of the gospel in evangelism and church discipline as was explained by our Lord respectively in John 20:20-23 "When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.' And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld'" and Matthew 18:15-18 "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven".

no, there's only one apostolic succession.

the "schism" is because they broke communion with the Church, which is centered around the seat of St. Peter.

technically, they can still rejoin the Catholic Church by acknowledging the supremacy of St. Peter's seat

But they have their own bishops and patriarchs, thats multiple apostolic successions no matter how you slice it…

no, there's only one valid line of succession,

it's like trying to say there's so many humans we cannot possibly be related through Adam and Eve

but you just said the catholic church viewed orthodox apostolic succession as valid …

you're trying to read 1 peter as if they are two clauses in a full sentence, but St. Peter

1. That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation

as in, no prophecy, no teaching of scripture is made by some dude by himself

2. For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time, but Holy men of God inspired by Holy Spirit

So, you need the teachings and traditions of the Apostles (inspired of the Holy Spirit) to understand scripture given over by the Holy Spirit


you're not reading it correctly, St. Paul refers to

1. our word. which is, teachings from in-person or through methods other than scripture

2. epistle. which is scripture canonized by the Church.

???

There is no contradiction, think harder.

additionally, I don't believe there's any extant epistles from the Apostles that are not canonized by the Church,

How is there no contradiction explain how its not contradictory for you guys to claim their churches have valid apostolic succession while their churches call yours invalid?

The Catholic side acknowledges their line of succession is valid, the Orthodox believes our line is not valid because they disagree with us on dogma.

The Catholic Church declares the Orthodox as schismatic, the Orthodox declares the Catholic heretical.

schismatic implies we are disconnected, heretic implies there is a complete break

Im sorry thats a pants on the head retarded mental gymnastics there

but what else would i expect from 8ch catholic

And you're reading it as if Peter is some kind of schizophrenic who can't express a coherent thought. This is what happens when you elevate human tradition above the word of God
Even if we accept your absurdity and pretend the verse distinctions are part of the bible and pretend the two sentences have nothing to do with each other, it still doesn't help you, because it says "no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation" which means the origin of a teaching of scripture is not human opinion, but divine revelation.
This is worse eisegesis than the pharisees practiced
We just established the basis of scriptural authority is not the church, but it's worth pointing out there was no such thing as "scripture canonized by the Church" when this was written

???

This an explanation of both sides of the debate. The Catholics do not believe a schism breaks a valid line of succession, because the apostolic succession does not in itself depend on allegiance to the seat of St. Peter.

Orthodox believe that the Catholics are out-right heretics, and believe this is enough to cut out the Catholics from a valid line of apostolic succession.

What more do I need to explain to you?

Very charitable of you.


We have a line of tradition that is not contained in the canonized scriptures, and the scriptures also affirm that there could be many books written about the deeds and teachings of Jesus Christ. Ergo…fill in the blank.


No, it means the interpretation of divine teaching belongs to those whom have the Holy Spirit, which would be the Apostles themselves, and thus the entire idea of a Holy Tradition.


not an argument


Not only did you never do this, you have yet to establish to whom is the authority to interpret Scripture. HINT: It's not you or myself, or anyone not preset at the Pentecost.

im just trying to get banned from this shithole tbh mods here are complete shit and should shoot themselves in the face.

I know you are, why don't you just leave like a normal person?

cause this place deserves to be shit on

Attached: pope.jpg (275x183, 5.41K)

Thank you :)
You don't have any traditions about the deeds and teachings of Jesus Christ
This is worse eisegesis than the pharisees practiced
Yeah but I did.

Yes we do, because we have the apostolic succession as well as a 2,000 year long tradition. You have…well…

>tfw OP thinks the tradition of the Apostles means some long-ago-corrupted institution claiming to be direct descendants of Peter

Attached: WzVxox.jpg (794x630, 100.27K)

so where would a protestant discover the extra-biblical traditions of the apostles? Their churches weren't around when Christ set up his actual Church.

k

1)Anyone who knows the history of Scripture or actually looks into it knows that the origin of Scriptures must be one which ties to Tradition. For instance in 1Corinthians part of this is the Eucharist which is handed down from the Lord Jesus. In fact grab any scholarly NT commentary even if it is Evangelical leaning and you can see how Scripture itself refers on many points to Jewish styles of exegesis. So the Catholic claim of tying Scripture to Tradition is not void but fact. Also, the Catholic view is that God is guiding the Church, the same view as Diognesius himself and practically the overall Patristic view!

2)Saying the true Church is ever in submission to God does not add anything or refute the Catholic view as that is what the Church must do in that view too.

3)The Presbyterians are incoherent and inconsistent in their worldview, because by their logic agency must de facto be impossible. That makes the Bible contradict itself and no one in their right mind would consider this valid. So in a situation where a Presbyterian cannot explain their incoherence and simply quote Scripture and other views quote Scripture too, there is literally only one way to break the deadlock, the appeal to Patristic tradition and reason, not to Scripture itself given it wont do anything in this situation. This is why the Presbyerians cannot claim to be the true church

sorry bro sola scriptura is the best barrier of defense against the corrupted rcc. if ypure so intent on pushing your easily denied jurisdictional claim, you should focus on fixing your own church’s problems with sexual abuse so that you can restore some modicum of credibility because those are some shitty fruits. And God doesnt produce shit. man does.

There's that low view of scripture we talked about again

The reason why we concentrate on what we call Apostolic Tradition so much is precisely because we believe it to be - not without reason, I may add - that it was, just like the Bible, revealed and given by God, not men.

Attached: Martorana_(Palermo)_-_Kuppel_msu2017-0148.jpg (1280x1310, 796.76K)