BluHorseShu said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

The Roman Church didn't infallibly define the scriptures until the 1500's. That means nobody knew what the Scriptures were until the 1500's

---

Actually, there was no need to define it bc everyone was practicing what was the apostolic tradition so there was no need to define it. Often, the only reason the RCC defined teachings is when there was a movement challenging what was already inspired scripture or tradition. This is an argument Protestants like to use as a gotcha…but it isn't. The Church isn't required to define every teaching about everything. It usually happens when something that has been taught since the apostles goes off the rails with some apostates…I.e. reformists. I have to do wonky emoji bc I don't pay for the fancy laughing emojis

---

Why this is nonsense: there have been controversies especially early in the Church about which books should be included.

It was never infallibly defined at the time because there was no pope for the first 350 years of the Church and nobody had the idea that ecumenical councils we're infallible. The Roman Church is good at revisionist history.

The Orthodox Church has no pope, doesn't believe in papal infallibility, never touched on the subject of a canon at an ecumenical council, never formally defined a canon, and still has a canon.

Discuss.

PS. I'd love for you to elaborate these supposed early church controversies about which writings are scripture.

jrico2727 said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

The Roman Church didn't infallibly define the scriptures until the 1500's. That means nobody knew what the Scriptures were until the 1500's

---

Actually, there was no need to define it bc everyone was practicing what was the apostolic tradition so there was no need to define it. Often, the only reason the RCC defined teachings is when there was a movement challenging what was already inspired scripture or tradition. This is an argument Protestants like to use as a gotcha…but it isn't. The Church isn't required to define every teaching about everything. It usually happens when something that has been taught since the apostles goes off the rails with some apostates…I.e. reformists. I have to do wonky emoji bc I don't pay for the fancy laughing emojis

---

Why this is nonsense: there have been controversies especially early in the Church about which books should be included.

It was never infallibly defined at the time because there was no pope for the first 350 years of the Church and nobody had the idea that ecumenical councils we're infallible. The Roman Church is good at revisionist history.

---

No pope for 350 years and we're the one making up history. Ok,lol

I would recommend reading St. Irenaeus of Lyons.

But before you do can you tell me the story about how Constantine started the Roman Catholic Church it's one of my favorite tales.

---

I'm guessing you actually haven't read anything from him yourself. Probably just snippets and quotes from your Catholic Encyclopedia.

Catholics can only wade in the shallow end of history. If they actually knew history prior to the 400s, they would know that the Roman Catholic Church didn't exist.


The Birth of the Roman Catholic Church I would place at the latter part of the 4th century when Damasus I apostatized by accepting the pagan title of Pontifix Maximus as head of the Roman pantheon by the Roman Emperor Gratian.

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

The Roman Church didn't infallibly define the scriptures until the 1500's. That means nobody knew what the Scriptures were until the 1500's

---

Actually, there was no need to define it bc everyone was practicing what was the apostolic tradition so there was no need to define it. Often, the only reason the RCC defined teachings is when there was a movement challenging what was already inspired scripture or tradition. This is an argument Protestants like to use as a gotcha…but it isn't. The Church isn't required to define every teaching about everything. It usually happens when something that has been taught since the apostles goes off the rails with some apostates…I.e. reformists. I have to do wonky emoji bc I don't pay for the fancy laughing emojis

---

Why this is nonsense: there have been controversies especially early in the Church about which books should be included.

It was never infallibly defined at the time because there was no pope for the first 350 years of the Church and nobody had the idea that ecumenical councils we're infallible. The Roman Church is good at revisionist history.

---

No pope for 350 years and we're the one making up history. Ok,lol

I would recommend reading St. Irenaeus of Lyons.

But before you do can you tell me the story about how Constantine started the Roman Catholic Church it's one of my favorite tales.

---

I'm guessing you actually haven't read anything from him yourself. Probably just snippets and quotes from your Catholic Encyclopedia.

Catholics can only wade in the shallow end of history. If they actually knew history prior to the 400s, they would know that the Roman Catholic Church didn't exist.


The Birth of the Roman Catholic Church I would place at the latter part of the 4th century when Damasus I apostatized by accepting the pagan title of Pontifix Maximus as head of the Roman pantheon by the Roman Emperor Gratian.

---

Ok so let's have some fun in the shallow end of history folks. I do enjoy Irenaeus, and it fun to read his stuff on newadvent.org. It's a great place to get snippets and quotes. Surprisingly this may be all that's needed when you come across someone whose arguments are based on insults and bearing false witness, or at the least repeating falsehoods without having the integrity to look them up for themelves.

What's great about Irenaeus is he is a student of Polycarp who of course is a student of St. John the Evangelist, so he is closer to this subject than any of us. So if one were to go to his great treatise Against Heresies we could see if the were in any Bishops in Time in a time prior to the 4th century, were they part of the Catholic Church, and were they part of a succession if Bishops, and what relationship would they have in the greater Church as a whole

So if one were to go to Against Heresies book 3 chapter 3 you could find this relevant information.
1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about.

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority [potiorem principalitatem].

3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolic tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

So Irenaeus who was a successor to the Apostles, confirms not only the preeminence of the See if Time but lists the order of the Bishops, the Pope's, from St Peter to his time.
I failed to see anything that supports your Chick track nonsense. Although I do think giving the Pope the title of greatest bridge builder is surely a sign of apostasy, lol. I would be interested to see what supports you have for your creative timeline.

Well you've provided evidence for apostolic tradition, a succession of bishops, and the early primacy of the Roman Church. There is no pope here in this. Nice try though. He also doesn't address what happens when the Bishop of Rome stands opposed to the apostolic tradition like when the Bishop of Rome sided with the Arians after Nicaea.


Even Catholic scholars recognize that this doesn't teach the existence of the papacy in the early Church. That's why they have had to come up with the Development Hypothesis.

Which bishop of the Romans sided with the Arians after Nicaea?

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Well you've provided evidence for apostolic tradition, a succession of bishops, and the early primacy of the Roman Church. There is no pope here in this. Nice try though. He also doesn't address what happens when the Bishop of Rome stands opposed to the apostolic tradition like when the Bishop of Rome sided with the Arians after Nicaea.


Even Catholic scholars recognize that this doesn't teach the existence of the papacy in the early Church. That's why they have had to come up with the Development Hypothesis.

---

First, I notice no attempt to justify any of your previous claims. So I would still like to know what supports your timeline?
Secondly, St. Irenaeus listed 13 Popes in succession from Peter. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome, to argue that is not the Pope because the don't use the name but meant the exact same office is weak. Also how did you expect a man living in the 150s in Gaul to address the much later occurrence of the Arians? And why even jump to that totally unrelated "event" without supporting your previous claims unless your sole purpose here to spread calumny about the church?

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

The Roman Church didn't infallibly define the scriptures until the 1500's. That means nobody knew what the Scriptures were until the 1500's

---

Actually, there was no need to define it bc everyone was practicing what was the apostolic tradition so there was no need to define it. Often, the only reason the RCC defined teachings is when there was a movement challenging what was already inspired scripture or tradition. This is an argument Protestants like to use as a gotcha…but it isn't. The Church isn't required to define every teaching about everything. It usually happens when something that has been taught since the apostles goes off the rails with some apostates…I.e. reformists. I have to do wonky emoji bc I don't pay for the fancy laughing emojis

---

Why this is nonsense: there have been controversies especially early in the Church about which books should be included.

It was never infallibly defined at the time because there was no pope for the first 350 years of the Church and nobody had the idea that ecumenical councils we're infallible. The Roman Church is good at revisionist history.

---

I always find these discussions interesting because for most Protestants, if they even consider the likelihood of the papacy being born from Peter, they'd have to call into question their own doctrine of authority (to different degrees) so it's kind of scary to even open one's mind to which one has more historical and biblical support. We could throw out a great numbers of historical facts but the impulse to refute it bc it would otherwise require deeper consideration of one's Protestant doctrine, is easier and more comfortable than actually the alternative. In other words, I believe most would oppose any support for the papacy simply bc of how they were brought up/taught within their denomination. Catholics consider all baptized Protestants Christians, but many Protestant denim's do not consider the RCC Christian

jrico2727 said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Well you've provided evidence for apostolic tradition, a succession of bishops, and the early primacy of the Roman Church. There is no pope here in this. Nice try though. He also doesn't address what happens when the Bishop of Rome stands opposed to the apostolic tradition like when the Bishop of Rome sided with the Arians after Nicaea.


Even Catholic scholars recognize that this doesn't teach the existence of the papacy in the early Church. That's why they have had to come up with the Development Hypothesis.

---

First, I notice no attempt to justify any of your previous claims. So I would still like to know what supports your timeline?
Secondly, St. Irenaeus listed 13 Popes in succession from Peter. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome, to argue that is not the Pope because the don't use the name but meant the exact same office is weak. Also how did you expect a man living in the 150s in Gaul to address the much later occurrence of the Arians? And why even jump to that totally unrelated "event" without supporting your previous claims unless your sole purpose here to spread calumny about the church?

---

You have to assume the office of Pope and anachronistically read that back into what Irenaeus wrote. There is no doubt that Apostolic churches carried more authority that other Churches. That's how the hierarchy started to develop over the first few hundred years. As Rome was the only apostolic founded Church in the West, of course the Western Churches including Irenaeus followed their lead. This wasn't the case in the Eastern apostolic Churches. To say otherwise is anachronistic.

Irenaeus disagreed with the Bishop of Rome during the Easter controversy. Why didn't Irenaeus tell the Eastern Church, "hey you need to listen to the Bishop of Rome about when to celebrate Easter. He is the vicar of Christ on earth and the head of the Church Universal?"



Here is a good debate on the topic if you are interested:

Did the Early Church believe in the Papacy?
Gerry Matatics vs James White 1993
https://sermonaudio.com/solo/aominorg/sermons/623151555428/

BluHorseShu said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

The Roman Church didn't infallibly define the scriptures until the 1500's. That means nobody knew what the Scriptures were until the 1500's

---

Actually, there was no need to define it bc everyone was practicing what was the apostolic tradition so there was no need to define it. Often, the only reason the RCC defined teachings is when there was a movement challenging what was already inspired scripture or tradition. This is an argument Protestants like to use as a gotcha…but it isn't. The Church isn't required to define every teaching about everything. It usually happens when something that has been taught since the apostles goes off the rails with some apostates…I.e. reformists. I have to do wonky emoji bc I don't pay for the fancy laughing emojis

---

Why this is nonsense: there have been controversies especially early in the Church about which books should be included.

It was never infallibly defined at the time because there was no pope for the first 350 years of the Church and nobody had the idea that ecumenical councils we're infallible. The Roman Church is good at revisionist history.

---

I always find these discussions interesting because for most Protestants, if they even consider the likelihood of the papacy being born from Peter, they'd have to call into question their own doctrine of authority (to different degrees) so it's kind of scary to even open one's mind to which one has more historical and biblical support. We could throw out a great numbers of historical facts but the impulse to refute it bc it would otherwise require deeper consideration of one's Protestant doctrine, is easier and more comfortable than actually the alternative. In other words, I believe most would oppose any support for the papacy simply bc of how they were brought up/taught within their denomination. Catholics consider all baptized Protestants Christians, but many Protestant denim's do not consider the RCC Christian

---

I completely agree that protestantism (especially the latter forms lacking apostolic succession and focusing on independence) lob critiques from shaky foundations about catholicism's authority derivation and papal doctrine. Thats why you'll see the debate move quickly into one of three directions: sola scriptura, the sins of the catholic church, or personal protest of an multi-layered authority head that usually goes, "Pope aint God and you can't tell me otherwise."

One of the big drivers for me into looking into church history and authority claims is the rise of multi-site baptist and nondenominational churches. Rail against the pope and authority from afar only to set up a leadership counsel and play pawn-bishop-pope yourself.

BluHorseShu said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

The Roman Church didn't infallibly define the scriptures until the 1500's. That means nobody knew what the Scriptures were until the 1500's

---

Actually, there was no need to define it bc everyone was practicing what was the apostolic tradition so there was no need to define it. Often, the only reason the RCC defined teachings is when there was a movement challenging what was already inspired scripture or tradition. This is an argument Protestants like to use as a gotcha…but it isn't. The Church isn't required to define every teaching about everything. It usually happens when something that has been taught since the apostles goes off the rails with some apostates…I.e. reformists. I have to do wonky emoji bc I don't pay for the fancy laughing emojis

---

Why this is nonsense: there have been controversies especially early in the Church about which books should be included.

It was never infallibly defined at the time because there was no pope for the first 350 years of the Church and nobody had the idea that ecumenical councils we're infallible. The Roman Church is good at revisionist history.

---

I always find these discussions interesting because for most Protestants, if they even consider the likelihood of the papacy being born from Peter, they'd have to call into question their own doctrine of authority (to different degrees) so it's kind of scary to even open one's mind to which one has more historical and biblical support. We could throw out a great numbers of historical facts but the impulse to refute it bc it would otherwise require deeper consideration of one's Protestant doctrine, is easier and more comfortable than actually the alternative. In other words, I believe most would oppose any support for the papacy simply bc of how they were brought up/taught within their denomination. Catholics consider all baptized Protestants Christians, but many Protestant denim's do not consider the RCC Christian

---

Whether they are or are not considered Christian by the other isn't really relevant given that both side anathematize the other. What good does it do to the Protestant if he is burning in hell, but his Catholic friends considered him a Christian and visa versa?


I certainly believe there are saved Christians among the Roman Catholic Church, but that is despite the Church. If a person accepts the official dogma of the Roman Catholic Church with regard to soteriology, I believe that they would fall under Paul's anathema in Galatians 1:8.

The same is true of Protestants who accept sola fide. They fall under the Catholic anathema of Trent.

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

The Roman Church didn't infallibly define the scriptures until the 1500's. That means nobody knew what the Scriptures were until the 1500's

---

Actually, there was no need to define it bc everyone was practicing what was the apostolic tradition so there was no need to define it. Often, the only reason the RCC defined teachings is when there was a movement challenging what was already inspired scripture or tradition. This is an argument Protestants like to use as a gotcha…but it isn't. The Church isn't required to define every teaching about everything. It usually happens when something that has been taught since the apostles goes off the rails with some apostates…I.e. reformists. I have to do wonky emoji bc I don't pay for the fancy laughing emojis

---

Why this is nonsense: there have been controversies especially early in the Church about which books should be included.

It was never infallibly defined at the time because there was no pope for the first 350 years of the Church and nobody had the idea that ecumenical councils we're infallible. The Roman Church is good at revisionist history.

---

I always find these discussions interesting because for most Protestants, if they even consider the likelihood of the papacy being born from Peter, they'd have to call into question their own doctrine of authority (to different degrees) so it's kind of scary to even open one's mind to which one has more historical and biblical support. We could throw out a great numbers of historical facts but the impulse to refute it bc it would otherwise require deeper consideration of one's Protestant doctrine, is easier and more comfortable than actually the alternative. In other words, I believe most would oppose any support for the papacy simply bc of how they were brought up/taught within their denomination. Catholics consider all baptized Protestants Christians, but many Protestant denim's do not consider the RCC Christian

---

Whether they are or are not considered Christian by the other isn't really relevant given that both side anathematize the other. What good does it do to the Protestant if he is burning in hell, but his Catholic friends considered him a Christian and visa versa?


I certainly believe there are saved Christians among the Roman Catholic Church, but that is despite the Church. If a person accepts the official dogma of the Roman Catholic Church with regard to soteriology, I believe that they would fall under Paul's anathema in Galatians 1:8.

The same is true of Protestants who accept sola fide. They fall under the Catholic anathema of Trent.

---

But Catholic doctrine teaches 1) that Protestants who profess their faith and are baptized are our brothers/sisters in Christ and are members of the Body of Christ. However, different people have different degrees of incorporation but al of our goal is to be fully incorporated. This includes faith and the sacraments. And the Church believes that those who believe and understand what Christ willed for his church but still choose to turn away from those things, that's where they can get into spiritual trouble. But I believe many Protestants accept a great many bc of the same things but have just been brought up in a Protestant culture and thus never really explored Catholic teachings. I was one of those, but over time I did seek them out.

Trent:

Canon 9. If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Trent:

Canon 9. If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.

---

So quick question,

Is there any walkthrough about how these statements pertains to both the centurion and also the thief on the cross? Those seem to be big, 'by faith alone' examples people like to point to. Clearly the thief on the cross did more than just simply believe in Christ as messiah, as he also confessed his sins, asked for forgiveness, and looked like he had a repentant heart (but couldn't show repentance with actions since he was about to die).

Quote:

---

One of the big drivers for me into looking into church history and authority claims is the rise of multi-site baptist and nondenominational churches. Rail against the pope and authority from afar only to set up a leadership counsel and play pawn-bishop-pope yourself.

---

This is an acceptable critique of the baptist/non-denominational movement.

I am reminded of quote: "Which is better - to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?"

I think we make a big deal about polity that ought not be there. One version is never really a panacea against the sins of another.

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Well you've provided evidence for apostolic tradition, a succession of bishops, and the early primacy of the Roman Church. There is no pope here in this. Nice try though. He also doesn't address what happens when the Bishop of Rome stands opposed to the apostolic tradition like when the Bishop of Rome sided with the Arians after Nicaea.


Even Catholic scholars recognize that this doesn't teach the existence of the papacy in the early Church. That's why they have had to come up with the Development Hypothesis.

---

First, I notice no attempt to justify any of your previous claims. So I would still like to know what supports your timeline?
Secondly, St. Irenaeus listed 13 Popes in succession from Peter. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome, to argue that is not the Pope because the don't use the name but meant the exact same office is weak. Also how did you expect a man living in the 150s in Gaul to address the much later occurrence of the Arians? And why even jump to that totally unrelated "event" without supporting your previous claims unless your sole purpose here to spread calumny about the church?

---

You have to assume the office of Pope and anachronistically read that back into what Irenaeus wrote. There is no doubt that Apostolic churches carried more authority that other Churches. That's how the hierarchy started to develop over the first few hundred years. As Rome was the only apostolic founded Church in the West, of course the Western Churches including Irenaeus followed their lead. This wasn't the case in the Eastern apostolic Churches. To say otherwise is anachronistic.

Irenaeus disagreed with the Bishop of Rome during the Easter controversy. Why didn't Irenaeus tell the Eastern Church, "hey you need to listen to the Bishop of Rome about when to celebrate Easter. He is the vicar of Christ on earth and the head of the Church Universal?"



Here is a good debate on the topic if you are interested:

Did the Early Church believe in the Papacy?
Gerry Matatics vs James White 1993
https://sermonaudio.com/solo/aominorg/sermons/623151555428/

---

By this same logic I could say that you were an anachronism in your mother's womb.

Certainly the Body of Christ has grown from infancy to where the Church is now, yes you will see changes and development but the DNA is the same.

Dr. James White from the top rope, from the 1990's no less. I am familiar with his work. Explains a lot about what your bringing here. Again not answering my questions, Zobel's question when you tried to use an Antipope to prove a point, and now trying dunk on Blu with Cannon 9




I think Trent Horn faired well with him here, especially with the once saved issue you are trying to jump on now.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Trent:

Canon 9. If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.

---

So quick question,

Is there any walkthrough about how these statements pertains to both the centurion and also the thief on the cross? Those seem to be big, 'by faith alone' examples people like to point to. Clearly the thief on the cross did more than just simply believe in Christ as messiah, as he also confessed his sins, asked for forgiveness, and looked like he had a repentant heart (but couldn't show repentance with actions since he was about to die).

---

Good Question

With the Thief he had a contrite heart, had a moment of faith and was given direct absolution from the Lord. Also, beyond that moment of faith, after his justification he didn't sin, how could he? Now his was a very exceptional experience. Most people would not be able to take this route to salvation. I think that is the issue with "faith alone", in saying there is no necessity of good works, or that a continuation of sin has no consequence, one is rejecting what is in the gospel. We see that people can do horrible things after accepting Christ as their savoir. We believe we are responsible for those actions and their consequences. So every sin after baptism, has to be dealt with in a proper manor, which would be a sacramental confession and a completion of the penance and receiving the Eucharist. Now all those actions are works of Christ that infuse grace into the sinner, they can either build on that grace, by living by the commandments and doing the good works commanded by the Lord or they can loose that grace by turning from the Lord and sinning.

I would look up not just this one cannon of 30 something on justification from the council and read all on justification. Here.

Repentance isn't a work. The Greek word is metanoia. It means a change of mind. Of course repentance is necessary for salvation, but repentance must proceed faith because what basis is there for salvation if there is nothing wrong you have done worthy of being saved from?

If one has an attitude that I just have to believe in Jesus and I can do whatever I want, that's what James would refer to as a dead faith.

True faith alone can save you.

A dead faith alone cannot save you.

Quote:

---

Of course repentance is necessary for salvation, but repentance must proceed faith because what basis is there for salvation if there is nothing wrong you have done worthy of being saved from?

---

I can see the merits of the 3 positions presented here:

https://www.ligonier.org/posts/faith-repentance

(repentance proceeds faith, vice versa, and "even debating it misses the point")

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Repentance isn't a work. The Greek word is metanoia. It means a change of mind. Of course repentance is necessary for salvation, but repentance must proceed faith because what basis is there for salvation if there is nothing wrong you have done worthy of being saved from?

If one has an attitude that I just have to believe in Jesus and I can do whatever I want, that's what James would refer to as a dead faith.

True faith alone can save you.

A dead faith alone cannot save you.

---

Some people refer to faith as just belief, but as you mention, your faith has to be in action. I don't think you become a robot with no free will once your saved. I assume those with faith still sin…but they work toward sanctification through repentance and those expressions (or works) that God calls us to do. This isn't to say that these merit salvation …not at all. I would argue that what you use one term for 'faith alone' , means the same as faith working. As u said, if you truly have faith when you repent and accept Christ, you can just throw your hands up and say that's all you have to do. Walking in Christ is working toward his Glory because that's what he calls us to do.

jrico2727 said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

The Roman Church didn't infallibly define the scriptures until the 1500's. That means nobody knew what the Scriptures were until the 1500's

---

Actually, there was no need to define it bc everyone was practicing what was the apostolic tradition so there was no need to define it. Often, the only reason the RCC defined teachings is when there was a movement challenging what was already inspired scripture or tradition. This is an argument Protestants like to use as a gotcha…but it isn't. The Church isn't required to define every teaching about everything. It usually happens when something that has been taught since the apostles goes off the rails with some apostates…I.e. reformists. I have to do wonky emoji bc I don't pay for the fancy laughing emojis

---

Why this is nonsense: there have been controversies especially early in the Church about which books should be included.

It was never infallibly defined at the time because there was no pope for the first 350 years of the Church and nobody had the idea that ecumenical councils we're infallible. The Roman Church is good at revisionist history.

---

No pope for 350 years and we're the one making up history. Ok,lol

I would recommend reading St. Irenaeus of Lyons.

But before you do can you tell me the story about how Constantine started the Roman Catholic Church it's one of my favorite tales.

---

I'm guessing you actually haven't read anything from him yourself. Probably just snippets and quotes from your Catholic Encyclopedia.

Catholics can only wade in the shallow end of history. If they actually knew history prior to the 400s, they would know that the Roman Catholic Church didn't exist.


The Birth of the Roman Catholic Church I would place at the latter part of the 4th century when Damasus I apostatized by accepting the pagan title of Pontifix Maximus as head of the Roman pantheon by the Roman Emperor Gratian.

---

Ok so let's have some fun in the shallow end of history folks. I do enjoy Irenaeus, and it fun to read his stuff on newadvent.org. It's a great place to get snippets and quotes. Surprisingly this may be all that's needed when you come across someone whose arguments are based on insults and bearing false witness, or at the least repeating falsehoods without having the integrity to look them up for themelves.

What's great about Irenaeus is he is a student of Polycarp who of course is a student of St. John the Evangelist, so he is closer to this subject than any of us. So if one were to go to his great treatise Against Heresies we could see if the were in any Bishops in Time in a time prior to the 4th century, were they part of the Catholic Church, and were they part of a succession if Bishops, and what relationship would they have in the greater Church as a whole

So if one were to go to Against Heresies book 3 chapter 3 you could find this relevant information.
1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about.

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority [potiorem principalitatem].

3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolic tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

So Irenaeus who was a successor to the Apostles, confirms not only the preeminence of the See if Time but lists the order of the Bishops, the Pope's, from St Peter to his time.
I failed to see anything that supports your Chick track nonsense. Although I do think giving the Pope the title of greatest bridge builder is surely a sign of apostasy, lol. I would be interested to see what supports you have for your creative timeline.

---

Not to be a fly in the ointment but Augustine of Rome showed up to the English isles and found out they already had a church (and they weren't subservient to Rome). In fact there were representatives at the early councils from isles.

Relying on Irenaeus presupposes he knew every apostle sent forth and their proper and right relationships with Rome (and that he was writing to address such things). Otherwise how do you explain Rome's ignorance of Anglicanism?

AGC said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

The Roman Church didn't infallibly define the scriptures until the 1500's. That means nobody knew what the Scriptures were until the 1500's

---

Actually, there was no need to define it bc everyone was practicing what was the apostolic tradition so there was no need to define it. Often, the only reason the RCC defined teachings is when there was a movement challenging what was already inspired scripture or tradition. This is an argument Protestants like to use as a gotcha…but it isn't. The Church isn't required to define every teaching about everything. It usually happens when something that has been taught since the apostles goes off the rails with some apostates…I.e. reformists. I have to do wonky emoji bc I don't pay for the fancy laughing emojis

---

Why this is nonsense: there have been controversies especially early in the Church about which books should be included.

It was never infallibly defined at the time because there was no pope for the first 350 years of the Church and nobody had the idea that ecumenical councils we're infallible. The Roman Church is good at revisionist history.

---

No pope for 350 years and we're the one making up history. Ok,lol

I would recommend reading St. Irenaeus of Lyons.

But before you do can you tell me the story about how Constantine started the Roman Catholic Church it's one of my favorite tales.

---

I'm guessing you actually haven't read anything from him yourself. Probably just snippets and quotes from your Catholic Encyclopedia.

Catholics can only wade in the shallow end of history. If they actually knew history prior to the 400s, they would know that the Roman Catholic Church didn't exist.


The Birth of the Roman Catholic Church I would place at the latter part of the 4th century when Damasus I apostatized by accepting the pagan title of Pontifix Maximus as head of the Roman pantheon by the Roman Emperor Gratian.

---

Ok so let's have some fun in the shallow end of history folks. I do enjoy Irenaeus, and it fun to read his stuff on newadvent.org. It's a great place to get snippets and quotes. Surprisingly this may be all that's needed when you come across someone whose arguments are based on insults and bearing false witness, or at the least repeating falsehoods without having the integrity to look them up for themelves.

What's great about Irenaeus is he is a student of Polycarp who of course is a student of St. John the Evangelist, so he is closer to this subject than any of us. So if one were to go to his great treatise Against Heresies we could see if the were in any Bishops in Time in a time prior to the 4th century, were they part of the Catholic Church, and were they part of a succession if Bishops, and what relationship would they have in the greater Church as a whole

So if one were to go to Against Heresies book 3 chapter 3 you could find this relevant information.
1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about.

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority [potiorem principalitatem].

3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolic tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

So Irenaeus who was a successor to the Apostles, confirms not only the preeminence of the See if Time but lists the order of the Bishops, the Pope's, from St Peter to his time.
I failed to see anything that supports your Chick track nonsense. Although I do think giving the Pope the title of greatest bridge builder is surely a sign of apostasy, lol. I would be interested to see what supports you have for your creative timeline.

---

Not to be a fly in the ointment but Augustine of Rome showed up to the English isles and found out they already had a church (and they weren't subservient to Rome). In fact there were representatives at the early councils from isles.

Relying on Irenaeus presupposes he knew every apostle sent forth and their proper and right relationships with Rome (and that he was writing to address such things). Otherwise how do you explain Rome's ignorance of Anglicanism?

---

Between work and the baseball game haven't had much time to look into this today, I am not too familiar with this incident, I would be interested in any insight or information you could provide.

but the Catholic Church is specifically mentioned in the Bible, in Greek, Acts 9:31 - Kath holes....

Correct, the Catholic formula so to speak for being in a state of grace (salvation) under ordinary circumstances is Repent > Faith > Sacrament.

"Whether they are or are not considered Christian by the other isn't really relevant given that both side anathematize the other. What good does it do to the Protestant if he is burning in hell, but his Catholic friends considered him a Christian and visa versa?"

+++

What do you think "Let him be Anathema" means?

ETA: Most people think it means something that it doesn't. A hint would be that you cannot be anathema if you are not already in the RCC.

Matthew 10:34-36
34 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. 35 For I have come to 'set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law'; 36 and 'a man's enemies will be those of his own household.'

...and so, here we are.

Context is everything...

"If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand." - Mark 3:25

Thaddeus73 said:

---

but the Catholic Church is specifically mentioned in the Bible, in Greek, Acts 9:31 - Kath holes....

---

The catholic church is merely the universal body of christ, the Roman Catholic Church is one of the much later/original pentarchy (ecclesiastical sees) and is clearly not mentioned, in Greek, in Acts.

The very idea of Acts 9:31 is that of a culmination after discussing Saul's ministry/acts that the churches of Judea, Galilee, and Samaria, etc. (but not Rome) were left in peace and built themselves up and continued to grow, in fear of the Lord.

Many in the chapter were in fact churches planted by Paul I believe...Peter's greatest rival, after all, and an odd place for the writer of Luke-Acts to have planted an indirect reference to a later RCC denomination.

Good one.



I know the RCC/orthodox folks don't like to see it this way, but it's pretty accurate really.

why would that bother RCC or Orthodox?

Zobel said:

---

why would that bother RCC or Orthodox?

---

Because they're all racist for forgetting the Ethiopians?

That was really just tongue in cheek.

In truth, the church/soma has never been fully united. It wasn't under Paul/Peter, it surely wasn't under the Pentarchy or early church fathers (Valentinus, Origen, Marcion, John Chrysostom, Clement, Ignatius, Irenaeus etc.), or at the ecumenical councils, which were necessarily human affairs, let alone any period afterward.

All churches which I'm aware of claim/cite Christ as their founder/foundation, that's all, not trying to pick an apostolic succession type of fight/argument!

Quote:

---

The catholic church is merely the universal body of christ, the Roman Catholic Church is one of the much later/original pentarchy (ecclesiastical sees) and is clearly not mentioned, in Greek, in Acts.

---

WRONG. Acts 9:31, in the Greek, specifically mentions Kath holes, or Catholic.