Thoughts on Catholicism? I've been catholic all my life but am having doubts since all the pedo shit...

You must understand that evil is in your midst. You must purge the beast.

Attached: hqdefault(5).jpg (480x360, 38K)

The pedo stuff is only because they don't allow pastors to marry, and having that shit built up over years being surrounded by men and boys, what do you expect?

the bible doesn't teach hate of Jews
it doesn't teach hate of anyone

the Jews took the power of the word of God and kept it from the world, rather than doing as He commanded and sharing it
Human beings are always corrupted by power, the only person who wasn't was Christ

The same cycle plays out in churches
Bad human beings are drawn to power
Churches that give themselves much power will inevitably attract corrupt leaders
give Christ the power
He's where it belongs

Don't abandon your faith because of the heresy of the church. We must follow the words of Jesus and follow the path of our faith. The gates of hell will be made of the skulls of those false priests

I understand where you're coming from, OP, but you should probably dive into the history of your faith a bit more. There have been councils that specifically deal with the sins of clergy and are not some handwaving attempt at sheltering their own, the actual ideas of salvation for them and for the church itself are at stake during sinful times - precisely because now you're thinking about dropping true salvation just because of the works of men.

Study the difference between the City of God and the City of Men, and stand true in your faith. If the works of the world can turn your faith, that is a personal strength you need to pray and work on. Do not mistake changing denominations but still believing in Christ as being 'okay', the split between these churches exists due to differences in the paths of salvation, so choosing a different path is not worldly nor should it be taken lightly.

God bless, OP.

I agree with you, brother. The only way to achieve a healthier and heavenly world is by practicing Christianism as primitive Christians did: manifesting God's goodness and virtues through our daily habits and aspiring other by our temperance. We need to show them the solution to nihilsm, individualism and sufferring exists.
The churches were corrupted since long. We cannot trust them to solve the current rejection to Christ, this is in our hands, but we can use them as a tool to understand the holy words and teachings

>Protestantism is the way to go, guys?

Fuck no. You'll end up in some poor ass church made of kindling drawing snakes out of a barrel. Fuck those unholy people. Go join the Orthodox community like I did.

But pastors can marry.... Did you mean priests?

molest me once, shame on you

You're late to the game, brother, but yes. Why do you think protestant church is even a thing? God speed brother, and may you find your brothers somewhere (they are out there to be found, I promise you). Take some of your catholics with you, don't forget them. But don't follow orders from the pope and don't follow orders from the priest. No man no woman no authority figure nobody tells me how to interpret the word of the Lord. It's personal. Even protestant churches sometimes forget this. I'd say start with the smallest one you can find -- like less than 20 members, one that still meets in someone's house, one that let's you talk.

Sandnigger religions are not appropriate for any white man.

...

(((abrahamic faiths)))
Stop being a cuck, start your own religion.
You are an adult now. Stop letting the Jews tell you that you are a sheep, a lamb or an eternal child.

Attached: kikeJustJewIt.jpg (225x225, 6K)

Retake your church. Hang the Godless and burn the kikes.

Attached: 1530162027232.gif (270x314, 3.98M)

Jewsus

>the pedo shit gets you
Theres an issue here
the church has rampant...
>liturgical abuse
>ecumenism
>failed catechism
>herecy
>apostecy
>homosexuality
>negligence of the faith
yet the only issue ordinary "Catholics" give a single care about is pedophilia. When all the other rampant wrongs happen weekly for decades no one bats an eye but the second a moral wrong that even secularists have issue with its suddenly a huge scandal
If you actually had an issue with the catholic church pedophilia would just be one of many ailments.

for (((you)))

Attached: jesus_overturning_the_tables_of_the_merchants_corrupting_the_church.jpg (800x500, 75K)

this

Jesus wasn't a jew, ffs people learn your Scriptures.
You've all been jewed, and you think you're red pilled or some shit.

sorry, I don't adhere to (((abrahamic faiths)))
Friendly reminder...Jewsus had the mark of the beast, he had a cut cock (was born a jew).

Of course he was. You get your jewness from your mom...Jesus had a Jewish mother and he had the mark of the beast (cut cock).
He quite literally was a Jew that decided to create a religion for sheep, lamb and cucks...

Wrong dumb ass.

You're a fag if you leave the Church because of corruption. That's pathetic to do on a governmental level, but this is the divine. You do not abandon Christ lest ye want Christ to abandon you.

>sorry, I don't adhere to (((abrahamic faiths)))
What do you adhere to, Pedro?

that is not an argument.
Tell me how I am wrong, I will wait.

>what is orthodoxy

I started my own religion

Enlighten us

Attached: Saint Mel.jpg (400x400, 48K)

>I've been catholic all my life
Incorrect. You were born atheist, like everyone else, and then someone lied to you.

well spoken sir

yes i know jesus was born a jew. you haven't read the new testament goy. First corinthians 7:17 (RSV): 17 Only, let every one lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches. 18 Was any one at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was any one at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. 19 For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God. 20 Every one should remain in the state in which he was called. 21 Were you a slave when called? Never mind. But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity. 22 For he who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a slave of Christ. 23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. 24 So, brethren, in whatever state each was called, there let him remain with God.

Anyway Jesus and new testament are more about destroying abrahimic religions than they are about supporting them. has much in common with eastern religions senpai.

this is also not true, depending on how you interpret what the bible actually says. the bible emphasizes a miraculous birth in which neither the mother or the father is involved and a purification ritual though water instead of (((blood)))

I got tired of all the bullshit squabbling (denominations) and the nonsense scripture instilling fear and guilt in people.
I especially got tired of the "turn the other cheek" shit.
I base my religion on the only thing every faith can agree on is proof of god: nature
I praise the greatest gift given to man as it allows us to feed ourselves and elevate our spirituality. It is the only true phenomenon we have on this earth that allows us to connect directly with God.

The people in our religion mostly discuss ways to preserve nature, expand our crop production and the closest thing we have to scripture is sacred living geometry.

>yes i know jesus was born a jew
He wasn't born at all, m80. He was fiction.

I don't adhere to abrahamic faiths but I have read the bible (old and new testament) and even the koran.

I have never encountered a christian that is more confused that you are.
Sorry, it is all hogwash.

There isn't a single historical mention of Jesus, he never existed.

>naturalism
oy fucking vey

exactly.
No historian of the time ever recorded the existence of Jesus.
You would think he would have been relevant.

how have you arrived at this conclusion? imho, this hypothesis is not aligned with the historical records from the period, and requires explaining a lot more than the alternative hypothesis which is that yes he did exist. there are a variety of secular sources that attest to the existence of a person named jesus that was influential in that period doing exactly the things he did. you have to do a lot of explaining and historiography to arrive at that conclusion. you could say perhaps that he was not who he claimed or he mislead people, but to claiim that he didn't exist at all is just foolish and doesn't align with historical records at all.

>if you were cut don't restore
Fuck off god, I want my dick back.

Follow what you believe in. If it makes you happy and you have a fulfilling existence, good for you.

I did not feel at home in Christianity or any other major religion.

I at least had the balls to start my own religion,

Nope. Find real, naturally emergent Indo-European religion, not some slavish Abrahamism, or worship Satan.

Attached: D173B3AC-52A9-4A8D-AA29-8FEF4A669BF3.jpg (369x369, 30K)

Bella Dodd wrote School of Darkness (something like that, user brought it up).
Said commies infiltrated the church in the 30s and intentionally hired gay priests to cause chaos

Checked

That involves a substantial amount of historiography. I don't think you understand that period of time in the roman empire as well as you seem to think. I understand that many people have your point of view, I even had that view myself for a while. But I'm telling you if you read more there actually are a variety of sources documenting almost identical activity occurrring in that period. It's also worth keeping in mind who ultimately killed Jesus, who was in power, and what interests there might have been in expunging certain records from recorded history. but a significant amount survived. To give some historical background on the period in which Jesus was alive, you might for instance consider reading this article -- written by a completely non religious economist who just wanted to have a bit of fun with one of the parables that had to do with taxation. This is Mises writing:

mises.org/wire/render-unto-caesar-most-misunderstood-new-testament-passage

The bits about rome are true. You can go from there, the sources he cites, to find many relevant passages in those books. I will find more for you that are better if you are actually interested. It will take a moment though, I don't have it at my fingertips, I went though that reading a while a go and I'll need a moment to retrace my steps and find things.

Your priesthood is filled with pedophiles. Your pope is a heretic. Most of your practitioners are literally shitskins and niggers.

>Muh Crusades

That shit was 900 years ago. Your pope now invites the Muslims into Europe and literally washes and kisses their feet. Catholicism is as much cancer these days as Islam is.

I'm sorry, not mises writing, I saved that article like that but now that i look again I see I was mistaken. The article is well sourced and worth reading though regardless and in any event it is still written by a secular economist endorsed by the mises institute

You are a Gnostic and Arian

Valtentinians and Basilidians and Saturnillians;each introduced/brought in privately and seperately its own/private opinion(ekastos idiōs kai etepoiōs idian doxan pareisēgagosan), and from them came false Christs and false prophets and false apostles who destroyed the unity of the Church by their poisonous doctrine against God and against his Christ.(Eusebius,Ecclesiastical History, IV.22 – Greek from the Loeb Classical Library,Eusebius Ecclesiastical History, 1.376 – English trans. mine.)

But since they allege the divine oracles and force on them a misinterpretation,according to their private [ton idion] sense [noun– mind/understanding], it becomes necessary to meet them just so far as to vindicate these passages, and to shew that they bear an orthodox sense, and that our opponents are in error. (Athanasius,Discourses Against the Arians, I.XI.37 – NPNF 4. 327.)

For being forced from the conceptions or rather misconceptions of their own hearts, they fall back upon passages of divine Scripture, and here too from want of understanding, according to their wont, they discern not their meaning;but laying down their own [tēn idian- private] irreligion as a sort of canon [kanona- rule] of interpretation, they wrest the whole of the divine oracles into accordance with it…(Athanasius,Discourses Against the Arians, I.XII.52 – NPNF 4. 337.)

There are historical records from the time of Jesus, even records of people that lived before Jesus.

Yet no Jesus.
Not a single shred of evidence has even been found proving the existence of Jesus.

>how have you arrived at this conclusion?

1. Nothing was written about him at the time he was claimed to have lived, despite reliable records existing for other significant people at the time. If you had witnessed events so miraculous that you believed a man to be the son of the creator of the universe, would you wait a few decades and then write it down?
2. The myth of jesus is a very clear plagiarism of other myths which pre-date the jesus myth by several centuries. The hacks who fabricated his existence were apparently too dim-witted to fabricate fresh lies.

Protestantism is false

The Reformers unequivocally rejected the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church. This left open the question of who should interpret Scripture. The Reformation was not a struggle for the right of private judgement.The Reformers feared private judgement almost as much as did the Catholicsand were not slow to attack it in its Anabaptist manifestation. The Reformation principle was not private judgement but the perspicuity of the Scriptures. Scripture was ‘sui ipsius interpres’ and the simple principle of interpreting individual passages by the whole was to lead to unanimity in understanding. This came close to creating anew the infallible church…It was this belief in the clarity of Scripture that made the early disputes between Protestants so fierce. This theory seemed plausible while the majority of Protestants held to Lutheran or Calvinist orthodoxy but the seventeenth century saw the beginning of the erosion of these monopolies. But even in 1530 Casper Schwenckfeld could cynically note that ‘the Papists damn the Lutherans; the Lutherans damn the Zwinglians; the Zwinglians damn the Anabaptists and the Anabaptists damn all others.’By the end of the seventeenth century many others saw that it was not possible on the basis of Scripture alone to build up a detailed orthodoxy commanding general assent.(A.N.S. Lane, “Scripture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Survey”,Vox Evangelica, Volume IX – 1975, pp. 44, 45 – bold emphasis mine

The fathers of the church spoke as they did because they regarded themselves as interpreters of the Scriptures. Therefore they are not to be made a substitute for the Scriptures;nor can the Scriptures be understood apart from the authoritative interpretation which tradition places upon them...if tradition is primitive, Protestant theology must admit that ‘Scripture alone’ requires redefinition. (Jaroslav Pelikan, Obedient Rebels, Harper & Row: New York, N. Y., 1964, p. 180 – bold emphasis mine.)

The divine Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as opposed to human writings; and the oral tradition or living faith of the catholic church from the apostles down, as opposed tothe varying opinions of heretical sects—together form one infallible source and rule of faith. Both are vehicles of the same substance: the saving revelation of God in Christ; with this difference in form and office, thatthe church tradition determines the canon, furnishes the key and true interpretation of the Scriptures, and guards them against heretical abuse. (Philip Schaff,History of the Christian Church, Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI, 1981 ed., vol. 3, p. 606 – bold emphasis mine.)

similar things can be said of the buddha, senpai. what proof, specifically, do you need?

The first clear attitude to emerge on the relation between Scripture, tradition and the church was the coincidence view: that the teaching of the church, Scripture and tradition coincide. Apostolic tradition is authoritative but does not differ in content from the Scriptures. The teaching of the church is likewise authoritative but is only the proclamation of the apostolic message found in Scripture and tradition. The classical embodiment of the coincidence view is found in the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian.

These both reject the Gnostic claims to a secret tradition supplementing Scripture.Apostolic tradition does not add to Scripture but is evidence of how it is correctly to be interpreted. This tradition is found in those churches which were founded by the apostles, who taught men whose successors teach today. These apostolic churches agree as to the content of the Christian message, in marked contrast to the variations among the heretics. It is important to note that it is the church which is the custodian of Scripture and tradition and which has the authentic apostolic message. There was no question of appealing to Scripture or tradition against the church. This is partly because the apostolic tradition was found in the church but not just for this reason: the Holy Spirit preserves the church from error and leads her into the truth. The real concern of Irenaeus and Tertullian was not with the relation between Scripture and tradition but with the identity of ecclesiastical with apostolic teaching. Any exposition of their teaching on Scripture and tradition which fails to show this is to that extent defective. (A.N.S. Lane, “Scripture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Survey”,Vox Evangelica, Volume IX – 1975, pp. 39, 40 – bold emphasis mine

Attached: 1533865994165.jpg (1080x1567, 125K)

You are Protestant who denies the authority of Church. You are against the Bible

Several publications by evangelicals have argued that the doctrine of sola scriptura was practiced, though implicitly, in the hermeneutical thinking of the early church. Such an argument is using a very specific agenda for the reappropriation of the early church: reading the ancient Fathers through the leans of post-Reformational Protestantism…Scripture can never stand completely independent of the ancient consensus of the church’s teaching without serious hermeneutical difficulties…the real question, as the patristic age discovered, is, Which tradition will we use to interpret the Bible?(D. H. Williams,Retrieving the Tradition & Renewing Evangelicalism, pp. 229, 234 – bold emphasis mine.)

Perhaps the most important aspect of the rule of faith is that it gives us what the Church conceived to be ‘the main body of truth’ (to use Irenaeus’ phrase). The Scriptures are, after all, a body of documents testifying to God’s activity towards men in Christ. They are not a rule of faith, nor a list of doctrines, nor a manual of the articles of a Christian man’s belief.In the rule of faith we have a key to what the Church thought the Scriptures came to, where it was, so to speak, that their weight fell, what was their drift. This interpretation of their drift was itself tradition, a way of handling the Scriptures, a way of living in them and being exposed to their effect, which, while not an original part of the Christian Gospel, not itself the paradosis par excellence, had been developed from the Gospel itself, from its heart, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit as an essential part of the existence of the Christian faith in history…We cannot recognize the rule of faith as original tradition, going back by oral continuity independently of Scripture to Christ and his apostles. But we can recognize it as the tradition in which the Church was interpreting Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and as such claim it as an essential ingredient of historical Christianity. (R.P.C. Hanson,Tradition In The Early Church, pp. 128, 129 – bold emphasis mine

I'll respond, but cite sources please.

In the ante-Nicene Church, the notion of sola Scriptura does not exist. But then there is also no notion of a tradition which is superior to Scripture, or which alters the essential content of the apostolic message as it is deposited in Scripture. There is simply no way of imagining possible conflict between the Christian Scripture and the Christian tradition—and, therefore, no necessity to choose between them.” (Albert Outler, “The Sense of Tradition in the Ante-Nicene Church”, inThe Heritage of Christian Thought: Essays in Honor of Robert Lowery Calhoun, edited by Cushman and Grislis: New York, N. Y., 1965, p.29)

You are a heretic. Dumb Sola Scripturist Proddie

There is no capital C "Church", senpai. But thank you for your wise opinion and sage advice.

If you really want to know whats happening you have to go to this website and watch their youtube

>mostholyfamilymonastery.com/

What was new here? Not the idea that the Bible, being God-given, speaks with God’s authority—that was common ground to both the Reformers and their opponents, and was indeed at that time an unquestioned Christian commonplace, like the doctrine of the Trinity. Nor was there anything new in the Reformer’s insistence that Bible reading is a sweet nourishing activity for Christian people. What was new was the belief, borne upon the Reformer’s by their own experience of Bible study, that Scripture can and does interpret itself to the faithful from within...From the second century on, Christians had assumed that the traditions and teachers of the church, guided by the Holy Spirit, were faithful to the biblical message, and that it was safe to equate Church doctrine with Bible truth.” (J. I. Packer, “‘Sola Scriptura’ In History and Today”,God’s Inerrant Word, ed. James Montgomery, pp. 44-45.)

I see. Well, when you are ready to debate perhaps you will make a thread. I will happily join it, I'm sure others have opinions as well and it may well be productive. Perhaps you are right, and I am mistaken. But as far as I can tell, from the reading I have done so far, I am not wrong about the things I am saying.

Nope. There is a literal capital C church in the entire Bible. Even Scholars know this. Try again

Attached: Screenshot_20180420-032545.png (1080x1920, 642K)

You are wrong and a Gnostic

>Is Protestantism really the way to go?

Attached: 1534656700553.gif (320x240, 2.65M)

I to am catholic op and the point that there are pedos in the church is true but there are also many in other denominations as well. The sad truth is is that there are sick people out there like this and they have lost their way. The main reason they are in the church is to gain trust to do these thing to those children, it's not the fault of the church but the individual who commits these acts. Another reason it seams like there are so many in the church is because we have the world watching us at every moment. I can almost guarantee that there are just as many in the Baptist, Lutheran, JW's,Mormons, etc. I hope this helps user

Clement himself wrote:

Blessed are we, beloved, if we keep the commandments of God in the harmony of love; that so through love our sins may be forgiven us. For it is written, “Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not impute to him, and in whose mouth there is no guile.”(ch. 50, Donaldson & Roberts trans. – in ANF 1.18, 19.)

[Also:“Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words.”(ch. 30 – ANF 1.13);“We see, then, how all righteous men have been adorned with good works, and how the Lord Himself, adorning Himself with His works, rejoiced. Having therefore such an example, let us without delay accede to His will, and let us work the work of righteousness with our whole strength.”(ch. 33) – ANF 1.14;“Let him who has love in Christ keep the commandments of Christ. Who can describe the [blessed] bond of the love of God? What man is able to tell the excellence of its beauty, as it ought to be told? The height to which love exalts is unspeakable. Love unites us to God. Love covers a multitude of sins. Love beareth all things, is long-suffering in all things. There is nothing base, nothing arrogant in love. Love admits of no schisms: love gives rise to no seditions: love does all things in harmony. By love have all the elect of God been made perfect; without love nothing is well-pleasing to God.”(ch. 49 – ANF 1.18

Early Christians against Sola Fide

Reymond'sA New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, for Reymond actually denies the "timelessness" God; note the following:

These verses[Gen. 21:33; Ps. 29:10; 45:6; 90:2, 4; 102:25-27; Is. 40:28; 1 Tim. 1:17]clearly ascribe everlastingness to God. But what is not so clear is whether his everlasting existence should be understood, with most classical Christian thinkers (for example, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas), as also involving the notion oftimelessness.(Page 192, 1st ed.)

In pages 173-177, Reymond reflects on what some other Reformed thinkers have had to say on this issue (e.g. Gordon H. Clark, Robert Lewis Dabney, Charles Hodge), and provides "three reasons" why he ends up rejecting God's "timelessness". He sums up his conclusion with:

...it would seem that the ascription to God of the attribute of timelessness (understood as the absence of a divine consciousness of successive duration with respect to his own existence) cannot be supported from Scripture nor is it self-consistent. At best, it is only an inference (and quite likely a fallacious one) from Scripture. These reasons also suggest that the Christian should be willing to affirm that the ordering of relationships of timearetrue for God as well as for man.(Page 176, 1st ed.)

Not only is Reymond at odds with many of his fellow Reformed theologians on this issue of God's "timelessness", he also takes issue with the Nicene Creed, the eternal generation of the Son, and the term "person", all of which has caused some Reformed folk to express certain reservations about his book. Perhaps the most thorough critique of the tome was provided by Dr. Robert Letham in his Fall 2000 - 62.2,Westminster Theological Journal(pp. 314-319) review

Protestants cannot agree on what the Bible says

you stink of big heresy, user

anyway, daily remember

Attached: savedpill.png (1576x1209, 453K)

This is Sola Scriptura:

the Books of Scriptureare to Us Now not onlythe Rule, butthe Wholeand the Only Rule of Truthin matters of Religion. (Samuel Clarke,The Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity, p. v - emphasis in the original.)

The following are Clarke's first nine propositions (I have used the updated list provided by Pfizenmaier in hisThe Trinitarian Theology of Dr. Samuel Clarke, p.5):

I. There is one supreme cause and original of things; one simple, uncompounded, undivided, intelligent agent, or person; who is the alone author of all being, and the fountain of all power.

II. With this first and supreme cause or Father of all things, there has existed from the beginning, a second divine person, which is his Word or Son.

III. With the Father and the Son, there has existed from the beginning a third divine person, which is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son.

IV. What the proper metaphysical nature, essence, or substance of any of these divine persons is, the Scripture has no where at all declared; but describes and distinguishes them always by their personal characters, offices, power, and attributes.

V. The Father alone is self-existent, underived, unoriginated, independent. He alone is of none, either by creation, generation, procession, or any other way whatsoever.

VI. The Father is the sole origin of all power and authority, and is the author and principle of whatsoever is done by the Son or by the Spirit.

VII. The Father alone is in the highest, strict, proper, and absolute sense supreme over all.

VIII. The Father alone is, absolutely speaking, the God of the universe; the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; the God of Israel; of Moses, of the Prophets and Apostles; and the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

IX. The Scripture, when it mentions the one God, or the only God, always means the supreme person of the Father.

Apostolic Succession
Scripture & Tradition
Eucharistic Presence

pick one:
The Church
my church

Attached: 1507513668322.png (757x235, 201K)

Look at it this way,
If you don't have a single shred of evidence that Jesus existed then the entire new testament is total bullshit...

You see what I am getting at?
Abrahamic faiths are a long con by them, nothing more.
Furthermore, the new testament is a selected number of books, many other books exist but did not make the cut in bible 2.0.

>bible is the word of God, hey, let's remove some of the shit he said and just keep the juicy parts.

There is a story in one of the dropped books that recounts the life of jesus as a child. In it, there is a story where Jesus Jr kills a kid with his will because the child dared to splash in the puddle Jesus was playing in.

If you can read that shit and forgive people 7 x 70 times and you still believe it was not some hoax created by them...then I feel sorry for you. An adult should know better at this point.

As for Buddha, I don't give two shits about him right now...we are on the topic of Jesus.

Any contemporary investigation of apostolic hermeneutics that does not treat the NT in the context of its hermeneutical environment will at best tell only part of the story, and at worst misrepresent the issue. There is no question that this continues to raise certain doctrinal issues concerning the role of the Apostles in defining "proper hermeneutics," but these concerns cannot drive the discussion. The New Testament authors give us ample opportunity to observe their hermeneutical behavior, and it is upon these facts—the facts of Scripture understood in their historical context—that doctrine must ultimately be based, particularly if what one is after is the articulation of a doctrine of Scripture.

I would like to draw an analogy with grammatical–historical exegesis. Grammatical–historical exegesis insists that the interpretation of texts must begin with the words in front of us understood in the context in which these words were written. Even with the caveats that pure objectivity is an illusion and that the author’s intention is essentially unrecoverable (or better, recoverable only on the basis of the words in front of us, which places the modern interpreter in a hermeneutical circle), it is nevertheless a fundamental notion that meaning must be "anchored" some how in something beyond the mere will of the interpreter. Any writer (including this one) who wishes to be understood will have a deep-rooted sympathy for such a hermeneutical principle

I don't adhere to (((abrahamic faiths)))

I'm not saying there is nothing to be gained by having some wiser people than myself confer about how to interpret and teach things -- I'll read what they write too. I'm just saying that, In my opinion, it is not a heresy to read what people write and decide for myself. In my opinion, the idea of a capital C church is simply not aligned with the mission of the apostles, and even on the surface seems to me to violate the very the purpose of the epistles in the first place. the apostles didn't stay in any one place, they wrote letters and they visited occasionally, but the churches themselves were governed independently, and even the apostles didn't think they held the true knowledge or power, they just had opinions. Paul says this numerous times. 1 Corinthians is a good example of this.

A problem arises, however, when we observe how the Apostles handled the OT. Despite protestations to the contrary, grammatical-historical hermeneutics does not account for the New Testament’s use of the Old. However self-evident grammatical-historical hermeneutics may be to us, and whatever very important contributions it has made and continues to make to the field of biblical studies, it must be stated clearly that the Apostles did not seem overly concerned to put this principle into practice. (Peter Enns, "APOSTOLIC HERMENEUTICS AND AN EVANGELICAL DOCTRINE OF SCRIPTURE: MOVING BEYOND A MODERNIST IMPASSE",Westminster Theological Journal, 63.3 – Fall 2003, p. 268

Protestants cant even agree on the Bible's meaning

neither i do
you're still a heretic under MY religion
and heretics deserve death

Wrong. The Greek "ekkelsia" says otherwise. When you got evidence against the New Testament Greek dictionary used by NT scholars, come back. Otherwise you are just a pseudointellectual wannabe

The advice in the image is top stuff.

While I'm a Catholic myself, and don't agree at all with the idea that all central religious authority is illegitimate by virtue of simply exercising its powers of authority, I do sympathize with those who are legitimately lost and confused, and considering the chaos of our age, I prefer to make some allowance to them. Your words are good. Keep on keeping the Faith and God bless you.

Also, OP is most likely attempting to stir conflict, so reader beware.

Attached: keep in mind.png (1255x1738, 279K)

Honestly it comes down to Sola Scriptura or Sola Ecclesia. At the end of the day if you are a Protestant you believe that the Bible is the final authority on theological matters. If you are a Roman Catholic you believe that the Pope is the final authority when speaking ex-Cathedra (a Pope's personal opinion is not infallible). If you are Eastern Orthodox or Coptic, you accept what your church agrees on...I'm not super familiar with the inner workings of Orddodox.

If you are Protestant you essentially agree with most of the dogma from Catholic councils (there are exceptions here, please forgive the very broad brush) made before the council of Trent. Where the Protestant deviates is we believe that the Bible and the Bible alone (Sola Sciptura) is our final authority and not the church. Rome teaches that you cannot be saved without the Church. Our Lord and His Apostles made it very clear in the Holy Scriptures that we are saved by grace alone (sola gratia) through faith alone (sola fide) through Christ alone (solus Christus) to the glory of God alone (soli Deo gloria).
Unfortunately there are heretics who claim to be Protestants. You musn't run to any simple Protestant churches. Way too many have forgotten what the PROTEST in Protestant means and have terrible theology.

Solaes are heresy against the councils and early Christians

truth

>t.Former Baptist pastor

I'll take the words of Our Lord and His Apostles over councils and popes.

The Bible stands against you alongside pre council fathers. Get over it

When you dumb Prots cant even agree on the Bible, dont even tell people what it teaches

Reymond'sA New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, for Reymond actually denies the "timelessness" God; note the following:

These verses[Gen. 21:33; Ps. 29:10; 45:6; 90:2, 4; 102:25-27; Is. 40:28; 1 Tim. 1:17]clearly ascribe everlastingness to God. But what is not so clear is whether his everlasting existence should be understood, with most classical Christian thinkers (for example, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas), as also involving the notion oftimelessness.(Page 192, 1st ed.)

In pages 173-177, Reymond reflects on what some other Reformed thinkers have had to say on this issue (e.g. Gordon H. Clark, Robert Lewis Dabney, Charles Hodge), and provides "three reasons" why he ends up rejecting God's "timelessness". He sums up his conclusion with:

...it would seem that the ascription to God of the attribute of timelessness (understood as the absence of a divine consciousness of successive duration with respect to his own existence) cannot be supported from Scripture nor is it self-consistent. At best, it is only an inference (and quite likely a fallacious one) from Scripture. These reasons also suggest that the Christian should be willing to affirm that the ordering of relationships of timearetrue for God as well as for man.(Page 176, 1st ed.)

Not only is Reymond at odds with many of his fellow Reformed theologians on this issue of God's "timelessness", he also takes issue with the Nicene Creed, the eternal generation of the Son, and the term "person", all of which has caused some Reformed folk to express certain reservations about his book. Perhaps the most thorough critique of the tome was provided by Dr. Robert Letham in his Fall 2000 - 62.2,Westminster Theological Journal(pp. 314-319) review

>the bible stands against itself
>this is what cathocucks actually believe
pathetic

The difference is there is no capital P "Protestants" -- it is literally just you, senpai, and the lord. you decide, you act. that's all there is. imo this is closer to any God that could possibly be. But I know very good Catholics, and imo the Catholic wedding ceremony is one of the most beautiful ceremonies in all of the world. If it requires unquestionable allegiance to a human being male in order to have that ceremony, then imo that's very unfortunate. I don't think it should have to, and I believe the vast majority of things the catholic doctrine has anyway. I have some disagreements though, and I fully reserve my right to have them. If this makes me a heretic or kicked out of the Catholic church as a result then, I guess, so be it. In my experience not very many catholics take it seriously today anyway. You can find a lot more /serious/ catholics in Protestant churches, today. I'm serious about this. Many the church that I go to. I guess they would be "former" catholics now, if this means they can't go back to the church -- but I and they -- still think their marriage vows and ceremonies are meaningful and fully valid, and we share many beliefs. but we also debate and confer and argue and, imo, we are all stronger as a result. we are all brothers, I truly believe this.