How can we trust the Church Fathers when so many of them were heretical? Like Tertullian was a Montanist...

DBH please go home. Despite whatever unfortunate influence he had on actual Fathers he's an irredeemable heretic of the highest order, one of the contemptable persons in the unholy trinity of heresiarchs with the others being Arius and Nestorius. Please read the Synodikon if you remained confused.

Wrong council, sorry.

The thing I love about Catholicism is that the Bible all ties together in a way that makes a great deal of sense, whereas all the Protestant churches I went to cherrypicked verses that made their denomination look favorable while ignoring other verses that contradicted their beliefs. Also, Protestants seem to treat the Old Testament in a very awkward way, as if it has no place in modern Christianity or is otherwise "icky" to them, while Catholics recognize it as the fulfillment of scripture. That's just my two cents as a former Prot anyway.

Attached: 143253.png (1160x1100, 735.37K)

You know many early Christians especially martyrs were illiterate plebeians, right?

The Church fathers did not believe in Sola Scriptura. They didn't believe that there was a dialectic between the church tradition and the scriptures.

If you actually read the Apology you would see all the things Origen was accused of were false. Not because any of the Church Fathers lied, but because they misunderstood and usually read interpolated works. Even in Origen's own lifetime he had to confront several heretics who had rewritten entire treatises of his that nearly caused him to be excommunicated while still living until he could produce the original manuscripts.
I'm no Origenist, they were insane, but Origen himself did not commit these atrocious errors. Even St. Epiphanius, Origen's most staunch opponent, admitted in his Panarion that Origen seems to "flip on opinions between paragraphs." As St. Pamphilus points out, this would have to mean Origen was one of the worst idiots to ever exist if he can't keep his narrative straight between paragraphs on the same page, or else he was interpolated. Given how the Apology dismantles all the things he's accused of (such as belief in reincarnation) one by one using his own original manuscripts and is written by a Saint, I choose the latter.

Attached: download (5).jpg (260x194, 7.56K)

Like you to answer this protties, the Bible is only the word of God if it was declared so by the church God left on the earth or God himself, because if it was declared by just "a bunch of men" its not the word of God.

Why are you telling lies?

I'm sorry user I'm a Christian, so I can't believe the very words of God only have so much authority as granted to them by mere men.

The scripture is correct but so are the fathers.

False dialectics will lead to falsehood.

Please tell me what makes the bible the word of God then

It's not

Attached: b4b8a2c774c0bc12ab97c42bb8a84763713ef34bab8e0b385abe780e2510a4da.jpg (1069x928, 429.33K)

Because we have the guidance of the Church tradition for centuries after them, and for centuries before us, to understand.

You're right. Let's trust pastor Jim instead!

Did God appointed you as head of His statistics or Justice departments?

What? I think god should appoint you to a fu cking dictionary

God Himself told us that they would be in Hell. Whoever gathers without Him scatters. And we know from tradition that all the non-Orthodox go to Hell when they die.

What are you talking about? James 2:14-26 is about justification before men.

Lmao no. Nice try heretic

There is no salvation outside the Church, because the Church is salvation. If you believe there is no salvation without Christ, then there is no salvation without the Church, the Body of Christ.
I assume you are a Protestant. Where in the scriptures do you see that the Church is invisible and not a clearly visible community?

Not him, but even as a strict Orthodox I ask, why were St. Dismas the Good Thief and others like him saved?
Why did Christ allow the others who were casting out devils to continue? Why did Christ simply tell those who asked for forgiveness that they were forgiven and that they should just depart and sin no more, why no mention of baptism and such?

The Church isn't a physical location or organization, it's anyone that's accepted the Holy Spirit

Yes. The Holy Spirit cannot contradict himself though.

I am Orthodox. And church didnt declare that some individual is damned, but declared saints. And you shouldn't either, that is not your prerogative.

The sacraments give us communion with Christ. St Dismas had communion with Christ, in fact he even died with Him.
As for the Old Testament righteous, they were united to Christ when He came down into Hell to rescue them.

Because no one who does a miracle in His name can speak ill of Him. This means that they truly know Who He is, in other words, they are theologically Orthodox even if they are not canonical. I do not suggest that such people are condemned, even if them being in a non-canonical situation is not healthy.
However, someone who is heterodox cannot use the name of Jesus, even if they speak it with their lips, because, not having the true doctrine about who He is, they can have no communion with Him. See Acts 19:11-17.

The sacrament of Baptism gives us to be united to the death of Jesus and resurrected with Him. He spoke of this, both about His death being a baptism (to the disciples) and about the sacrament of baptism being given through water (to Nicodemus).
When He healed illnesses and forgave sins, this was the sacrament of Anointing of the Sick.

I agree with you. The Church is not a location, nor is it a worldly organization or institution. The Church, however, is visible, and its boundaries can be known.

Who else are you going to follow? Protestant pastor Jim? Or the men who established the canon and persevered through times of real suffering for Christ?

Andrew Louth says he was sympathetic to semi Arianism but repented at nicea

What made it the word of God when God spoke to Moses? See, the problem here is "word of God" isn't just some meaningless buzzword we throw around, it literally means what it actually says, "word of God". The bible is the word of God because men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit, not because the pope gave God permission to speak. How exactly is your church supposed to have "made" scripture the word of God anyway if it wasn't in the first place? Is the pope a god, able to change reality just by declaring it to be so?

Paul literally mentions that this type of faith cannot save, *not* that this cannot present a good example.

Right so how do you know that the scriptures were guided by the Holy Spirit, what is your requirements to differentiate scripture from non-scripture and fakes etc.

Number of actual scriptural citations: zero.

What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?
Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?
You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?

Attached: delet this.jpeg (360x360, 23.57K)

Thank you for actually citing a verse now.

What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? - James 2:14

So, who is the man saying he has faith to? Another man. We get this in the example that follows where one man gives another man food as opposed to only saying "be fed." And in James 2:18:

Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. - James 2:18

So then this fits squarely with Romans 4:5 and the rest of Scripture because James 2:14-26 is about justification before men, whereas justification before God is through Biblical faith, saved by faith through grace. No impasse here.

Attached: BibleKJV.jpg (320x240, 27.2K)

Also 1 Corinthians 4:1-4 ties this together.

Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.
Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.
But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.
For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.

Luke 7:29 KJV

I'll let you connect the dots

I've always been fascinated by Cathodox logic. "Oh, there is a part of scripture that is hard for me to understand. I guess there is no other possible conceivable way to understand it without 1500 years of church history which also isn't consistent. "

Acts 17:11

I bet that a Catholic would stop the barean Jews in their tracks and be like "No! Do not judge for yourself if our dogmas are true. Just listen to the pope and the so called infallible magisterium. "

That's disingenuous, or at least sounds disingenuous.

You should know that Scripture tells us to rely on the Apostles' and their teaching (quite literally, "rely on our traditions") and even the Eunuch admitted he could not know the scriptures without an Apostle.

If the Berean Jews were so noble, why did they need the New Testament? And if you admit that being noble wasn't 1:1 with being saved (without the Gospel) why do you then pretend that accepting the New Testament does not also means accepting the Apostles?

Paul warned of those who would come after him speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them. This is in Acts 20. Right after this he entrusts them to the word of God. And in 2 Timothy 3 Paul again tells Timothy to know of whom he has learned scripture, which is the word of God. So yes the existence of false teachers who came to draw after them disciples was already predicted. And according to Galatians 1:8-9 and Mark 7:7-13 we know exactly who the interposers are, it's those who lay aside the commandment of God in favor of the tradition of men. They like the visuals, the feelings and the rituals which men have made, they like the sayings that men have devised, but have no regard for the substance of Scripture in its inspiration. And the Bible's existence, uncorrupted, continually stands as constant proof and a visual reminder of this. He is ready to show the way to anyone who seek the right ways, the ways of the Lord, and has his word prepared for them.

That's some serious mental gymnastics. You're not even arguing with user anymore, you're arguing with Christ himself.
As stated plainly in even the demons have believe but are not saved. Works are not about justification before men, works and faith are derivatives of each other. If you have no works, you have no faith ergo you must have works to have faith.
Salvation requires faith requires works, therefore salvation requires works.

If the Bible truly encapsulates all of Christianity, can you tell me where in the Bible you find a commandment to only rely on the Bible for spiritual guidance?

Tertullian also formed the notion of the Trinity. Are you going to disregard that part because he was heretical on other things?
St. Ambrose, I believe, taught that if the words 'I baptize you in the name of Christ' are used during baptism, that it's a valid baptism, which is clearly wrong.
Etc.
And because of this human failings, Christ gave the Church the authority to safeguard and teach the truth and the Church alone has this authority.

If the KJV isn't a good translation, then nothing is a good translation.

You really like to ignore the metaphorical beam in the eye of the Catholic Church.

Mass literary is only a recent development but prots can’t get their heads around that.

never mind the verses that disprove your solas. Let's ignore those.
So tired of prots

What exactly am I supposed to be arguing with here? Is there a scripture somewhere you'd like to cite or are you placing yourself in his shoes right now?
Don't misquote scripture. It says they believe there is one God. Similar to what yids believe, but that's not saving them.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. - John 14:6

Are we making general statements about works right now? Ok, so are you emphasizing your works above God's? Because God's works save.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. - 2 Timothy 3:16-17

No clue what this is supposed to mean. Do you mean all doctrine like I just explained earlier?
How is quoting James 2:14 directly, explaining how it ties in to the next verses, and quoting James 2:18 directly hard to understand, or do you just say this no matter what?

I should say, what they supposedly believe. And what a lot of people who reject the Son supposedly believe.