AgLiving06 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Redstone said:

---

The concept and reality is similar, abstractly, to annulment: a declaration of what exists.

The dogmas of St. Mary have been taught for 2,000 years by Apostolic, East and West.
….since proclaimed by the First Vatican Council in 1870, invoked once in defining a dogma ex cathedra that all Catholics must believe.

Pope Pius XII declared that all Catholics (including us, today) must accept "that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory."

This is the fourth of the Marian dogmas of the Church. Codified after 2,000 years - I suppose we tend to "think" in centuries, which is healthy.

Weaponized ambiguity, including by many Catholics, is lamentable. I hope our leaders return to clarity.

---

The "dogmas of Mary" were absolutely not taught for 2,000 years. I believe our resident Orthodox would also disagree with that assertion.

Those claims also were almost certainly completely foreign to the earliest church fathers, and instead took centuries to develop.

For example, in this video, Gavin Ortlund looks at Roman Catholic Scholars to see what they say (starting at 9 minutes or so).



So your claim, while I think is sincere on your part, doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

---

This guy has so many holes in his arguments and his debates with Catholics fall short. Gavin uses the same poor arguments as others do, he just speaks quietly. This is often the problem with these videos, people watch them and if it supports their own biases, they don't bother to fact check them at all. This goes to both Protestant and Catholics apologists. Its on the listeners to do their homework.

---

You must not be caught up on the thread yet. Even the RCC apologists concede that Gavin is probably correct about the timing of when claims of Mary start to come up.

Gavin has flaws, and says some things I disagree with, but as he points out in the video, it's not him speaking but RCC scholars.

---

Yes but they are not agreeing with him that the Church didn't believe it before a certain point. When something in the Church was already a mainstay of belief, they didn't have to formalize it until a large enough group called it into question. This was true about a number of things. If you use this argument, then you could throw doubt on the belief in the Trinity. He's using a bad argument here. We could say the exact same about any protest denominations and there statements of faith that didn't 'formally' exist until much much later.

---

This is not a convincing argument.

None of the mariology was a "mainstay belief" until centuries later. Even the earliest potential writings such as Epiphanius are so dicey that not even the RCC group that was debating Gavin was in agreement on what it meant.

This is why Lofton (and Redstone) essentially have to default to saying that the lack of support or evidence in the early church is nice, but actually irrelevant because "the church" can supercede any claims and create doctrine.

---

The Church cannot contradict scripture though. If we use the subjective 'dicey' idea for early support, it can be a very slippery slope for other articles of faith for many denominations. I'll trust the Church Christ started....but I'll also verify with scripture.

---

Addressing this more fully would probably take this on a tangent that isn't worth going on.

I'll just reiterate a couple points made by the RCC apologists.

1. There isn't "mainstay belief" in the marian claims early in the church. It doesn't pop up for centuries. The "dicey" language I used applies to Epiphanius, who not even that group seemed to be in agreement over.

2. Even the group in the video admitted at best these are typological arguments, which I've always contended are the weakest arguments because you are having to read a secondary meaning into the Scripture.

3. In the end, Rome always has the fallback of historical or even real scriptural language isn't necessary because the magisterium can just dictate what it deems correct. It's why its somewhat convenient to pick 2 claims that are just vague enough that there's no direct defeater in Scripture because it's not addressed either way.

So in the end, the real problem I have with it all is the demand that you must believe it. That your salvation depends on something that even Lofton claims is low on the "hierarchy of truth"

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

You have been asked hundreds of times to answer the following questions and to date you have never provided a direct answer:

You hold that there are only 66 books of Scripture:

WHO decided the Deuterocanonical books are NOT Scripture?

WHEN was this decided?

HOW was this decided?

By WHAT AUTHORITY was this decision made?

---

Man...those are your questions to research. You've asked them, and I thought you got answers to them somewhere?

What is important to me, is the Reformers, especially Luther, did not do any of the things you accuse him of.

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

You have been asked hundreds of times to answer the following questions and to date you have never provided a direct answer:

You hold that there are only 66 books of Scripture:

WHO decided the Deuterocanonical books are NOT Scripture?

WHEN was this decided?

HOW was this decided?

By WHAT AUTHORITY was this decision made?

---

Man...those are your questions to research. You've asked them, and I thought you got answers to them somewhere?

What is important to me, is the Reformers, especially Luther, did not do any of the things you accuse him of.

---

Except Luther did adhere to the Marian doctrines including here divine motherhood and perpetual virginity.

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Redstone said:

---

The concept and reality is similar, abstractly, to annulment: a declaration of what exists.

The dogmas of St. Mary have been taught for 2,000 years by Apostolic, East and West.
….since proclaimed by the First Vatican Council in 1870, invoked once in defining a dogma ex cathedra that all Catholics must believe.

Pope Pius XII declared that all Catholics (including us, today) must accept "that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory."

This is the fourth of the Marian dogmas of the Church. Codified after 2,000 years - I suppose we tend to "think" in centuries, which is healthy.

Weaponized ambiguity, including by many Catholics, is lamentable. I hope our leaders return to clarity.

---

The "dogmas of Mary" were absolutely not taught for 2,000 years. I believe our resident Orthodox would also disagree with that assertion.

Those claims also were almost certainly completely foreign to the earliest church fathers, and instead took centuries to develop.

For example, in this video, Gavin Ortlund looks at Roman Catholic Scholars to see what they say (starting at 9 minutes or so).



So your claim, while I think is sincere on your part, doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

---

This guy has so many holes in his arguments and his debates with Catholics fall short. Gavin uses the same poor arguments as others do, he just speaks quietly. This is often the problem with these videos, people watch them and if it supports their own biases, they don't bother to fact check them at all. This goes to both Protestant and Catholics apologists. Its on the listeners to do their homework.

---

You must not be caught up on the thread yet. Even the RCC apologists concede that Gavin is probably correct about the timing of when claims of Mary start to come up.

Gavin has flaws, and says some things I disagree with, but as he points out in the video, it's not him speaking but RCC scholars.

---

Yes but they are not agreeing with him that the Church didn't believe it before a certain point. When something in the Church was already a mainstay of belief, they didn't have to formalize it until a large enough group called it into question. This was true about a number of things. If you use this argument, then you could throw doubt on the belief in the Trinity. He's using a bad argument here. We could say the exact same about any protest denominations and there statements of faith that didn't 'formally' exist until much much later.

---

This is not a convincing argument.

None of the mariology was a "mainstay belief" until centuries later. Even the earliest potential writings such as Epiphanius are so dicey that not even the RCC group that was debating Gavin was in agreement on what it meant.

This is why Lofton (and Redstone) essentially have to default to saying that the lack of support or evidence in the early church is nice, but actually irrelevant because "the church" can supercede any claims and create doctrine.

---

The Church cannot contradict scripture though. If we use the subjective 'dicey' idea for early support, it can be a very slippery slope for other articles of faith for many denominations. I'll trust the Church Christ started....but I'll also verify with scripture.

---

Addressing this more fully would probably take this on a tangent that isn't worth going on.

I'll just reiterate a couple points made by the RCC apologists.

1. There isn't "mainstay belief" in the marian claims early in the church. It doesn't pop up for centuries. The "dicey" language I used applies to Epiphanius, who not even that group seemed to be in agreement over.

2. Even the group in the video admitted at best these are typological arguments, which I've always contended are the weakest arguments because you are having to read a secondary meaning into the Scripture.

3. In the end, Rome always has the fallback of historical or even real scriptural language isn't necessary because the magisterium can just dictate what it deems correct. It's why its somewhat convenient to pick 2 claims that are just vague enough that there's no direct defeater in Scripture because it's not addressed either way.

So in the end, the real problem I have with it all is the demand that you must believe it. That your salvation depends on something that even Lofton claims is low on the "hierarchy of truth"

---

Read the RCC catechism on salvation, it comes from unmerited saving grace from won by Jesus. You hear a couple of apologists in a video, here Gavin compliment your own beliefs and make encompassing statements about the RCC. The Bible demands we believe it for salvation, yet we rely on men to help us with interpreting it. At some point, it is demanded of every Christian to believe these things one way or the other.

I don't blame you though. You have sought out your choice of denomination for practicing your faith and I'm sure at your age, the idea of considering anything else again is overwhelming. I imagine most of us have done our own due diligence, sought out and experienced different Christian denominations and settled on one. So we cannot help but remain biased the one we landed on is the correct application of Christianity. In short, nothing I could show you or say would likely cause you to rethink your current choice. We could go round and round about scriptural interpretation and the history of the RCC and protestant churches but we'd still wind up right back in the same place. I could go on ad nauseum about my time as a Protestant for 30 years and the 15 years fighting against the idea of becoming a member of the RCC, but ultimately realizing the truth. That was my journey and you have yours.

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

At the end of the day, the protestant lines have turned a molehill into a mountain over the books in the bible - because that is all they have. (Or in the case of luther, he saw himself as having the sole authority to decide.) Its plainly obvious throughout the history of ancient jewish sects up through the united orthodox/catholic church that you see books having a hierarchy of authority. If a book was kept (and not discarded) it was clearly authoritative. But some were more authoritative than others. Different sects would argue about the authority of a few books compared to the next sect, but the overall corpus were telling the same story of God and man. The sect that the dead sea scrolls came from was basically a printing press for Enoch and Genesis. If you were to ask them about the authority of Enoch they would say you are mistaken to not consider that book as authoritative. Samaritans were basically the first protestants, they cut the authoritative scriptures down to just the Pentateuch.

That holy spirit, the apostolic succession, and the traditions of the church shape what is authoritative scripturally. Not the other way around. Preservation and reading of the scripture is the crown jewel of the church.

In orthodoxy, you see three basic delineations. Books to be read in church, books to be read at home, and books not to be read. Even within church, the epistles can be read by anyone and the congregation can sit. The gospels are read by the bishop/priest/deacons and the congregation stands. Clearly a hierarchy of honor.

Arguing about what is out versus in becomes a trivial pursuit, especially in modern times. You either read the books designated 'at home' at home, or you don't. Pious rules are for the pious. You still participate fully in the life of the church throughout the year with liturgy, prayer, fasting, almsgiving as well as the sacraments and attending more than just liturgy, especially during Pascha.

---

Man, this is really being unfair to Protestants and simply ignores most of this thread.

Protestants have not made a "mountain out of a molehill." We are not the ones making the claim that an infallible apostolic church has defined the canon and there is no deviation. That claim is solely Romes (or at least Redstone).

No honest Protestant is going to claim that the Holy Spirit simply denoted all the canon and it was clearly known from day 1. Everybody recognizes that some books were included interspersed within what would become the canon that were not considered canonical. Even Luther, who included the apocrypha in his Bible, while not calling it canon, called them books good and useful or even worth of reverence.

So all the delineations you try to apply to, at least the EO, are similar for many Protestants.

The key difference is all of this is that the claim being made here is that Rome (or "apostolic church") produced the Scripture. That's is the sole claim we are not willing to accept.

---

I don't have to defend any modern Rome interpretation, but the united orthodox/catholic church did protect, preserve, and meet to discuss canon. A claim the modern catholic church gets to make. Any protestant objection or point of contention on the canon has to first wrestle with the face that their lineage didn't serve as protectors of scriptures. The interesting view about canon counsels is this idea that they were drastic deviations from what the early church/ancient jewish sects already believed. Counsels were the end of a discussion, not the beginning. Your local patriacharate was already operating on a gradient of scripture whenever they showed up to a counsel. The OT corpus was pretty well established by the time the early church rolled around. A few books in or out, but nobody is fighting for the removal of psalms, prophets, or Pentateuch. The new testament didn't take a counsel to spot authoritative works as it rolled off the press. Nobody had to chose four gospels between 12 accounts. Or that Paul's letters shouldn't be collected, copied, and shared. Their authenticity was obvious.

I don't fully understand the bristling at Rome or the apostolic church 'producing' the scripture. Either the early church 'produced' it or it dropped out of the sky. There were no lutherans, methodists, baptists, presbyterians at any of the church counsels. And even if you could take someone who perfectly embodies those mainline protestant views, transport them back in time, and place them at the counsels the rest of the church body would pivot to immediately declare those protestant viewpoints heretical and to stop wearing jeans and a tee shirt to church, but thank you for the green bean casserole and fried chicken.

-Is Rome part of the early church?: Yes
-Did members of the early church produce written works we call scripture?: Yes
-Did the bishop of Rome cherish, protect, and make copies of the works they all saw as authentic and authoritative: Yes.
-Did the Bishop of Rome sit down and dictate that X shall make a book and we shall call it scripture?: No.
-Did Paul apply for grant money, sign over his IP rights to Peter, show up one day and said here is your scripture you ordered: No.

The big take is that protestants like to go, 'yeah those are people in the church, not the beaucracy of the church. So the church didn't create it, the people of the church did.' The early church would absolutely trounce on the idea that the church is an invisible creation and there is delineation between the people of the church and its authority structure. If the people of the early church created the bible, the church created the bible. The church is physical people, physical buildings all under one authority structure.

---

Terminus Est said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

At the end of the day, the protestant lines have turned a molehill into a mountain over the books in the bible - because that is all they have. (Or in the case of luther, he saw himself as having the sole authority to decide.) Its plainly obvious throughout the history of ancient jewish sects up through the united orthodox/catholic church that you see books having a hierarchy of authority. If a book was kept (and not discarded) it was clearly authoritative. But some were more authoritative than others. Different sects would argue about the authority of a few books compared to the next sect, but the overall corpus were telling the same story of God and man. The sect that the dead sea scrolls came from was basically a printing press for Enoch and Genesis. If you were to ask them about the authority of Enoch they would say you are mistaken to not consider that book as authoritative. Samaritans were basically the first protestants, they cut the authoritative scriptures down to just the Pentateuch.

That holy spirit, the apostolic succession, and the traditions of the church shape what is authoritative scripturally. Not the other way around. Preservation and reading of the scripture is the crown jewel of the church.

In orthodoxy, you see three basic delineations. Books to be read in church, books to be read at home, and books not to be read. Even within church, the epistles can be read by anyone and the congregation can sit. The gospels are read by the bishop/priest/deacons and the congregation stands. Clearly a hierarchy of honor.

Arguing about what is out versus in becomes a trivial pursuit, especially in modern times. You either read the books designated 'at home' at home, or you don't. Pious rules are for the pious. You still participate fully in the life of the church throughout the year with liturgy, prayer, fasting, almsgiving as well as the sacraments and attending more than just liturgy, especially during Pascha.

---

Man, this is really being unfair to Protestants and simply ignores most of this thread.

Protestants have not made a "mountain out of a molehill." We are not the ones making the claim that an infallible apostolic church has defined the canon and there is no deviation. That claim is solely Romes (or at least Redstone).

No honest Protestant is going to claim that the Holy Spirit simply denoted all the canon and it was clearly known from day 1. Everybody recognizes that some books were included interspersed within what would become the canon that were not considered canonical. Even Luther, who included the apocrypha in his Bible, while not calling it canon, called them books good and useful or even worth of reverence.

So all the delineations you try to apply to, at least the EO, are similar for many Protestants.

The key difference is all of this is that the claim being made here is that Rome (or "apostolic church") produced the Scripture. That's is the sole claim we are not willing to accept.

---

I don't have to defend any modern Rome interpretation, but the united orthodox/catholic church did protect, preserve, and meet to discuss canon. A claim the modern catholic church gets to make. Any protestant objection or point of contention on the canon has to first wrestle with the face that their lineage didn't serve as protectors of scriptures. The interesting view about canon counsels is this idea that they were drastic deviations from what the early church/ancient jewish sects already believed. Counsels were the end of a discussion, not the beginning. Your local patriacharate was already operating on a gradient of scripture whenever they showed up to a counsel. The OT corpus was pretty well established by the time the early church rolled around. A few books in or out, but nobody is fighting for the removal of psalms, prophets, or Pentateuch. The new testament didn't take a counsel to spot authoritative works as it rolled off the press. Nobody had to chose four gospels between 12 accounts. Or that Paul's letters shouldn't be collected, copied, and shared. Their authenticity was obvious.

I don't fully understand the bristling at Rome or the apostolic church 'producing' the scripture. Either the early church 'produced' it or it dropped out of the sky. There were no lutherans, methodists, baptists, presbyterians at any of the church counsels. And even if you could take someone who perfectly embodies those mainline protestant views, transport them back in time, and place them at the counsels the rest of the church body would pivot to immediately declare those protestant viewpoints heretical and to stop wearing jeans and a tee shirt to church, but thank you for the green bean casserole and fried chicken.

-Is Rome part of the early church?: Yes
-Did members of the early church produce written works we call scripture?: Yes
-Did the bishop of Rome cherish, protect, and make copies of the works they all saw as authentic and authoritative: Yes.
-Did the Bishop of Rome sit down and dictate that X shall make a book and we shall call it scripture?: No.
-Did Paul apply for grant money, sign over his IP rights to Peter, show up one day and said here is your scripture you ordered: No.

The big take is that protestants like to go, 'yeah those are people in the church, not the beaucracy of the church. So the church didn't create it, the people of the church did.' The early church would absolutely trounce on the idea that the church is an invisible creation and there is delineation between the people of the church and its authority structure. If the people of the early church created the bible, the church created the bible. The church is physical people, physical buildings all under one authority structure.

---

The fallacy of what you've written is you attempt to create the ancient church with either the EO or Rome. That's not a correct assumption and so it skews your entire reasoning.

You make the statement: "There were no lutherans, methodists, baptists, presbyterians at any of the church counsels." Sure I'll buy that, but would add that there were no Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox either.

Rome and the EO don't have some unilateral claim to the fathers and you certainly don't get to retcon modern beliefs onto those groups.

So a better statement would simply be that "There were church fathers back then who would certainly have agreed with Rome and the EO on some things, but there's also many who would have agreed with Lutherans or even Calvinist on some things."

We know this is true because the Reformers did not dismiss history, but strived to reclaim it. My stance as a Lutheran is that we addressed the errors that the Western Church had to restore it closer to the original state. We are as much the historic western church as anything Rome is.

---

"We are as much the historic western church as anything Rome is, but we name ourselves after a 16th century monk"

---

Quote:

---

The name Lutheran originated as a derogatory term used against Luther by German Scholastic theologian Johann Maier von Eck during the Leipzig Debate in July 1519. Eck and other Roman Catholics followed the traditional practice of naming a heresy after its leader, thus labeling all who identified with the theology of Martin Luther as Lutherans.

Martin Luther always disliked the term Lutheran, preferring the term evangelical, which was derived from euangelion, a Greek word meaning "good news", i.e. "Gospel".

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Sir, if the ancient church wasn't catholic and orthodox, what was it?

A simple Wikipedia reading would reveal that the five ancient churches were Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. Rome schismed with the other churches over the nature of the Holy Spirit in the nicene creed.

Wikipedia, a place I would never recommend for theological understanding, has a more correct understanding of the church than what you just wrote.

Side note. This is literally the calling card of Orthodoxy. The most unchanged faith from the apostles. Go do some research and find how the early church operated and what they believe and how it differs from the modern Orthodox Church. (Hint is doesn't in any meaningful manner, especially theologically.)

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Redstone said:

---

The concept and reality is similar, abstractly, to annulment: a declaration of what exists.

The dogmas of St. Mary have been taught for 2,000 years by Apostolic, East and West.
….since proclaimed by the First Vatican Council in 1870, invoked once in defining a dogma ex cathedra that all Catholics must believe.

Pope Pius XII declared that all Catholics (including us, today) must accept "that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory."

This is the fourth of the Marian dogmas of the Church. Codified after 2,000 years - I suppose we tend to "think" in centuries, which is healthy.

Weaponized ambiguity, including by many Catholics, is lamentable. I hope our leaders return to clarity.

---

The "dogmas of Mary" were absolutely not taught for 2,000 years. I believe our resident Orthodox would also disagree with that assertion.

Those claims also were almost certainly completely foreign to the earliest church fathers, and instead took centuries to develop.

For example, in this video, Gavin Ortlund looks at Roman Catholic Scholars to see what they say (starting at 9 minutes or so).



So your claim, while I think is sincere on your part, doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

---

This guy has so many holes in his arguments and his debates with Catholics fall short. Gavin uses the same poor arguments as others do, he just speaks quietly. This is often the problem with these videos, people watch them and if it supports their own biases, they don't bother to fact check them at all. This goes to both Protestant and Catholics apologists. Its on the listeners to do their homework.

---

You must not be caught up on the thread yet. Even the RCC apologists concede that Gavin is probably correct about the timing of when claims of Mary start to come up.

Gavin has flaws, and says some things I disagree with, but as he points out in the video, it's not him speaking but RCC scholars.

---

Yes but they are not agreeing with him that the Church didn't believe it before a certain point. When something in the Church was already a mainstay of belief, they didn't have to formalize it until a large enough group called it into question. This was true about a number of things. If you use this argument, then you could throw doubt on the belief in the Trinity. He's using a bad argument here. We could say the exact same about any protest denominations and there statements of faith that didn't 'formally' exist until much much later.

---

This is not a convincing argument.

None of the mariology was a "mainstay belief" until centuries later. Even the earliest potential writings such as Epiphanius are so dicey that not even the RCC group that was debating Gavin was in agreement on what it meant.

This is why Lofton (and Redstone) essentially have to default to saying that the lack of support or evidence in the early church is nice, but actually irrelevant because "the church" can supercede any claims and create doctrine.

---

The Church cannot contradict scripture though. If we use the subjective 'dicey' idea for early support, it can be a very slippery slope for other articles of faith for many denominations. I'll trust the Church Christ started....but I'll also verify with scripture.

---

Addressing this more fully would probably take this on a tangent that isn't worth going on.

I'll just reiterate a couple points made by the RCC apologists.

1. There isn't "mainstay belief" in the marian claims early in the church. It doesn't pop up for centuries. The "dicey" language I used applies to Epiphanius, who not even that group seemed to be in agreement over.

2. Even the group in the video admitted at best these are typological arguments, which I've always contended are the weakest arguments because you are having to read a secondary meaning into the Scripture.

3. In the end, Rome always has the fallback of historical or even real scriptural language isn't necessary because the magisterium can just dictate what it deems correct. It's why its somewhat convenient to pick 2 claims that are just vague enough that there's no direct defeater in Scripture because it's not addressed either way.

So in the end, the real problem I have with it all is the demand that you must believe it. That your salvation depends on something that even Lofton claims is low on the "hierarchy of truth"

---

Read the RCC catechism on salvation, it comes from unmerited saving grace from won by Jesus. You hear a couple of apologists in a video, here Gavin compliment your own beliefs and make encompassing statements about the RCC. The Bible demands we believe it for salvation, yet we rely on men to help us with interpreting it. At some point, it is demanded of every Christian to believe these things one way or the other.

I don't blame you though. You have sought out your choice of denomination for practicing your faith and I'm sure at your age, the idea of considering anything else again is overwhelming. I imagine most of us have done our own due diligence, sought out and experienced different Christian denominations and settled on one. So we cannot help but remain biased the one we landed on is the correct application of Christianity. In short, nothing I could show you or say would likely cause you to rethink your current choice. We could go round and round about scriptural interpretation and the history of the RCC and protestant churches but we'd still wind up right back in the same place. I could go on ad nauseum about my time as a Protestant for 30 years and the 15 years fighting against the idea of becoming a member of the RCC, but ultimately realizing the truth. That was my journey and you have yours.

---

Yes. It is good the modern Roman Catholic Church has moved on from burning heretics at the stake. I'm happy that's not something I have to worry about. We can agree to disagree on whether Rome at Trent would have been so conciliar as they are now.

But to your second paragraph. If you go read what I wrote in thread asking about the backgrounds we have, you'll see that I've historically been one of the most open to change if necessary. This includes a very close look at EO. I can remember a time of being very pro-EO on here. I suspect that many on here are "cradle xyz" and have never actually done a true search, maybe out of fear of what they might find.

My stance is pretty straightforward. I want the Church that is most faithful to the Scriptures first, and secondarily can find its history rooted in the church fathers. That has meant for me that Lutheranism is the best fit because it best fits those criteria. Could that change? Maybe, if the Holy Spirit sees fit to show me a better way, but I have a hard time seeing that.

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Sir, if the ancient church wasn't catholic and orthodox, what was it?

A simple Wikipedia reading would reveal that the five ancient churches were Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. Rome schismed with the other churches over the nature of the Holy Spirit in the nicene creed.

Wikipedia, a place I would never recommend for theological understanding, has a more correct understanding of the church than what you just wrote.

Side note. This is literally the calling card of Orthodoxy. The most unchanged faith from the apostles. Go do some research and find how the early church operated and what they believe and how it differs from the modern Orthodox Church. (Hint is doesn't in any meaningful manner, especially theologically.)

---

The ancient church was the ancient church. They aren't the modern XYZ church and trying to force them into the modern boxes we've created does a injustice to them.

And yes, I know the claims of the EO. There is certainly truth that they have done a good job of preserving certain aspects of the ancient church. It's what drew me to them for so many years.

But claiming that the fathers would "be the modern Rome or EO" is just simply retconning the modern churches and beliefs on to fathers, when their actual writings don't agree.

One of the reasons I feel so comfortable with Lutheranism, is that great lengths that the Reformers went to prove that they were not doing anything new, but were building on what the ancient fathers said.

---

What beliefs do you think the church fathers passed down that the modern orthodox church doesn't do? Don't just waive your hand. Be specific. You might think the orthodox has moved on and the ancient church is unaccessable, but Luther's immediate followers didn't believe that.

They wanted to 'reunite' under the banner of the apostolic church. What came out of this discussion was huge ream of letters between Jeremias II and Augustana Graeca. Their common grounds were basically the grievances against the catholic church, but unmovable views on the filioque, apostolic succession, and priest structure. Basically it came down to - congrats on leaving the catholic church, if you would like to not repeat the sins of the catholic church by declaring yourself sole arbiter you can come join the orthodox by continuing in the orthodox faith. And the lutherans rejected it, because why give up being a new pope?

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

(There is a lot I would like to respond to, but I think I will save that for later and just try to focus on one area for now.)

AgLiving06, please correct me if I am wrong on this, but we both agree that Scripture is the Word of God. We agree that the men who physically wrote Scripture were protected by the Holy Spirit in that specific work, and that what they wrote is the infallible Word of God and is without error. We have agreement up to this point, correct?

-------------------------------------------------------
There are more steps involved than what you are acknowledging. So let's look at where we go now:

Point/Question #1: St. Paul (for example) wrote many, many letters during his time evangelizing on earth. We do not have everything Paul wrote today for various reasons. Did the Holy Spirit only guide and protect St. Paul when he was writing the letters that we still have today and are in the NT? Was only some of what St. Paul wrote infallible or was everything written by St. Paul infallible? Same question can be applied to Luke, or James, or Peter, or any of the NT writers.

IF everything St. Paul ever wrote in his time evangelizing for Christ was infallible and therefore Scripture then, unfortunately, we are missing part of God's Word today. If only part or some of what St. Paul wrote was truly God Breathed Infallible Scripture - and that is what we have in the NT today - then the question is how can we know which part was God-Breathed Scripture and which part was just the words of St. Paul, the man? What is your answer to this, today?


Point/Question #2: Several times you have talked about the Holy Spirit being "active" in the transmitting or writing of the Scriptures, and the church playing a "passive" role in receiving Scripture. This is where you lose me completely.

1. The men writing the NT Scriptures were not placed into a trance by the Holy Spirit with God moving their pens for them. The men were fallible sinners throughout the entire process, but God protected them from error with the Holy Spirit working through them guiding them.

2. You seem to divorce the Holy Spirit from the Church, which I find odd and borderline offensive. When it comes to the writing part of Scripture you say the Holy Spirit played an "active" role in the process, but when it comes to the reception of Scripture you say the Church only plays a "passive" role, and you don't mention what kind of role the Holy Spirit plays, if any. The Holy Spirit was "active" guiding the reception and recognition of Scripture in the same way He was "active" in guiding the writing of Scripture. There was nothing passive about it. God has always chosen to work through fallible humans, which is the only way we can really know that what we hold as Scripture is Scripture. Without the Church you could not begin to know what is Scripture and what is not. Now we can argue about what we mean by "the Church", and clearly we have differing views on that, but the Scriptures have come to us through the Church.

3. You have repeatedly said that the Church is subjugating God somehow, which is ridiculous. Making this statement demonstrates how you completely misunderstand the Catholic and the Orthodox view of the entire topic at hand. The Holy Spirit was sent to guide the CHURCH into all truth and Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would guide the CHURCH until the end of the ages. It is impossible to separate the Holy Spirit from the Church which is why it is impossible for the Church, founded by Jesus with Jesus as our head - and guided by the Holy Spirit, to somehow subjugate God. It is literally not possible. It is all of the same essence.

---

Terminus Est said:

---

Thank you Luther, very cool! pic.twitter.com/IbUGnHvRyT

— Cursed Protestant Nonsense (@protnonsense) December 3, 2023

This is what the church in the first century looked like

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Terminus Est said:

---

Thank you Luther, very cool! pic.twitter.com/IbUGnHvRyT

— Cursed Protestant Nonsense (@protnonsense) December 3, 2023

This is what the church in the first century looked like

---

It's good to see when you have nothing, you can still troll.

The ELCA is not Lutheran, and probably not Christian.

---

Jabin said:

---

Terminus Est said:

---

Thank you Luther, very cool! pic.twitter.com/IbUGnHvRyT

— Cursed Protestant Nonsense (@protnonsense) December 3, 2023

This is what the church in the first century looked like

---

You aren't very self-aware, are you? Someone from a "church" that tolerates and covers for pedophile priests, popes who have children by their own daughters, popes had their own armies, and bishops, cardinals, and popes who lived in monstrous mansions while their "flock" suffers in abject poverty, shouldn't be throwing stones like you're doing.



Hampton Court, Cardinal Woolsey's mansion

---

Quote:

---

The ELCA is not an issue of bad actors doing stuff against the teachings of their church, it's the actual teachings of the church themselves.

---

Quote:

---

I disparage Protestants because of the massive ill fruits they have wrought and because their reformation was the biggest win for Satan since convincing Eve she knew better than God.

---

Terminus Est said:

---

Jabin said:

---

Terminus Est said:

---

Thank you Luther, very cool! pic.twitter.com/IbUGnHvRyT

— Cursed Protestant Nonsense (@protnonsense) December 3, 2023

This is what the church in the first century looked like

---

You aren't very self-aware, are you? Someone from a "church" that tolerates and covers for pedophile priests, popes who have children by their own daughters, popes had their own armies, and bishops, cardinals, and popes who lived in monstrous mansions while their "flock" suffers in abject poverty, shouldn't be throwing stones like you're doing.



Hampton Court, Cardinal Woolsey's mansion

---

A lot of emotion in that post, very little substance. The ELCA is not an issue of bad actors doing stuff against the teachings of their church, it's the actual teachings of the church themselves.

It seems rather than doing some deep soul searching as the Anglicans/Episcopalians did when their church started going off the rails and joining the Catholic Church, the Lutherans have just declared each other "not really Lutheran" and pretend like the other doesn't exist. Where they get the authority for this, they never question, but they are absolutely sure they have it; but for some reason the Catholic Church doesn't.

---

Terminus Est said:

---

Jabin said:

---

You are blind to the faults of the RCC and keep repeating RCC propaganda that has no basis in history, fact, or reality. I am also bowing out.

---

Easy things to say. Much harder to prove. The Lutheran tact seems to be "declare victory, keep answers as vague as possible, claim your opponents don't know what they're talking about"

---

Jabin said:

---

You are blind to the faults of the RCC and keep repeating RCC propaganda that has no basis in history, fact, or reality. I am also bowing out.

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Jabin said:

---

You are blind to the faults of the RCC and keep repeating RCC propaganda that has no basis in history, fact, or reality. I am also bowing out.

---

It's the sad reality and I agree. Those defending the Rome position have turned to trolling or outright ignorance, so I likewise agree it's time to bow out.

---

Jabin said:

---

Terminus Est said:

---

Thank you Luther, very cool! pic.twitter.com/IbUGnHvRyT

— Cursed Protestant Nonsense (@protnonsense) December 3, 2023

This is what the church in the first century looked like

---

You aren't very self-aware, are you? Someone from a "church" that tolerates and covers for pedophile priests, popes who have children by their own daughters, popes had their own armies, and bishops, cardinals, and popes who lived in monstrous mansions while their "flock" suffers in abject poverty, shouldn't be throwing stones like you're doing.



Hampton Court, Cardinal Woolsey's mansion

---