Calvinist sisters, we lost...
the LARP is over...
monarchical episcopate dates to the early 2nd century as attested by the seven letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch, and we spent centuries calling them fake just because Calvin couldn't deal with it...
but modern scholarship considers them all authentic and we are completely BTFO and exposed as midwits or open frauds...
>John Calvin called the epistles "rubbish published under Ignatius' name."[4]:119
>by 2017, most patristic scholars accepted the authenticity of the seven original epistles.[4]:121ff[43][44][45]
oops
Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest.
—Letter to the Magnesians 2, 6:1
Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid.
—Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8, J.R. Willis translation
h-how will we ever recover from this epic defeat...
 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
|
Why did jannie ban me?
Where does the monarchical part come in, and the so called supreme pontiff?
2nd century is still removed from the new testament
>still removed from the new testament
Not relevant. Nobody pretends the letters of Ignatius are scripture. But the argument is that they testify to a specific part of the apostolic tradition along with scripture in the very first years of the ancient church.
>Where does the monarchical part come in
"do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God"
Christ is king. That's where.
>so called supreme pontiff
so you agree with the Greek orthodox churchs, eh? On what other matters do you agree with them?
Reformed churches have bishops too, they're just also presbyters. Are we to read presidency in terms of the table in this quote? Only one presbyter usually presides. In certain Lutheran traditions the lay elder presides only - not the minister.
Calvinism is compatible with other ecclesiastical polities anyway. Hungarian reformed churches have bishops in the episcopal sense.
Here's another fun fact: there's one sole bishop in the American United Church of Christ, because the single non-regional conference of that denomination is Hungarian reformed and they retained their polity.
PRESBYTERORUM ORDINIS
"2. The Lord Jesus, "whom the Father has sent into the world" (Jn 10:36) has made his whole Mystical Body a sharer in the anointing of the Spirit with which he himself is anointed.(1) In him all the faithful are made a holy and royal priesthood; they offer spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ, and they proclaim the perfections of him who has called them out of darkness into his marvelous light.(2) Therefore, there is no member who does not have a part in the mission of the whole Body; but each one ought to hallow Jesus in his heart,(3) and in the spirit of prophecy bear witness to Jesus.(4)
The same Lord, however, has established ministers among his faithful to unite them together in one body in which, "not all the members have the same function" (Rom 12:4). These ministers in the society of the faithful are able by the sacred power of orders to offer sacrifice and to forgive sins,(5) and they perform their priestly office publicly for men in the name of Christ. Therefore, having sent the apostles just as he himself been sent by the Father,(6) Christ, through the apostles themselves, made their successors, the bishops,(7) sharers in his consecration and mission. The office of their ministry has been handed down, in a lesser degree indeed, to the priests.(8) Established in the order of the priesthood they can be co-workers of the episcopal order for the proper fulfillment of the apostolic mission entrusted to priests by Christ.(9)
The office of priests, ... shares the authority by which Christ builds up, sanctifies and rules his Body. Wherefore the priesthood, while indeed it presupposes the sacraments of Christian initiation, is conferred by that special sacrament; through it priests, by the anointing of the Holy Spirit, are signed with a special character and are conformed to Christ the Priest in such a way that they can act in the person of Christ the Head.(10)"
Ah the ancient document of 1965, a true mystery to patristic scholars
You're not making your case against reformed polity very well
>1965
Hey, just quoting a document that actually is doctrinal for the chruch of Rome here. No need to get snippy.
Have you ever seen The Gospel According to St. Matthew (1964, Pasolini)? Great film, highly recommended.
I mention this because in one scene I thought of something we have discussed before about the rite of fraction. Maybe you remember it. It's the Last Supper obviously, just thought you might get something out of it if you were to watch closely what the actor playing Jesus does.
It's in Italian, but subtitles should be easy to find freely.
Noted, thanks
>Reformed churches have bishops too
haha
okay buddy I'm sure they enjoy legitimate unbroken apostolic succession too, right? Because that's very important.
See, priests are the liturgical instruments of the living Christ.
Some do. I know at least one American Lutheran Church that received it from some Episcopalian church as a condition for being in full communion. The Episcopalians got it from the Anglicans who got it from the Archbishop of Canterbury.
>Lutheran
Yeah? Well they're not "reformed" technically, even though they started the reformation proper.
"Reformed" usually refers to Calvinist denominations, at least in my experience.
Some Lutheran churches recognize apostolic succession, others don't. The ELCA is one that does.
THIS is just pathetic. It's not a good look man, take the like a champ.
Take the loss*
I'm ready to concede ignatius disagreed with my polity once it's demonstrated
>Where does the monarchical part come in
It's pretty well established Ignatius is the earliest witness to the rising Monarchial episcopate in the early 2nd century. The pastoral in the NT already give indication of a trend in this direction, as house churches began to come under the authority of a single overseer, Ignatius is an early witness and supporter of this. For Ignatius one of the defining markers of catholicity is unity with the bishop
>In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment ofJesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrin of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church.
The pinnacle of this unity was in the Eucharist, one which was done under the bishop and his representatives:
>Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh ofour Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to show forth the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever you do, you may do it according to God.
Just about all of Ignatius's letters stress throughout unity with the bishop and the presbyters, because communion with the bishop ensures a valid Eucharist and thus where the Catholic Church can manifest itself:
>Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by thebishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without thebishopeither tobaptizeor to celebrate alove-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
More like Ignatius made it up and you're retroactively claiming that it was a universal practice. Why are Romans so insistent on lying?
Ignatius wrote some of these epistles on his way to his death. He was willing to die brutally for his brothers. The greatest vocation in Christ's words. You're just some homosexual on a mongolian basketweaving forum.
K but his brother Polycarp who was also martyred practiced Presbyterian polity.
Ignatius addresses Polycarp as bishop of Symrna, and it's clear from his letters that the Church in Symrna had an episcopal polity.
Polycarp's letter to the Philippians does seem to indicate that the Church there was still led by Elder-bishops but it's also possible that the Overseership in Phillipi was vacant which is why only presbyters and deacons are mentioned.
The monarchical episcopate was not universally implimented across all parts of the Church immediately, and other parts of the Church like Rome only had a quasi-episcopal polity going on. The Churches throughout Syria and much of Anatolia had adopted the polity and likely by apostolic authority as indicated by Ignatius and other Fathers of the 2nd century. Certainly John the Apostle, who was still alive in the late 1st/early 2nd century would've seen this polity and his own Church in Ephesus had adopted this polity probably while he was still alive, if not just after his death.
According to Jerome
bishops were elected in some areas of the ancient church. So the presence of a bishop alone does not necessitate the presence of a top-down structure of ordinations. There are no reliable sources about a bishop at Philippi, one of the first churches, planted by Paul, until Prophyrios in 325 AD; the lack of a bishop may have been the cause of their writing to Polycarp for guidance.
>and the so called supreme pontiff
I'll just say this: The Roman Church held some sort of primacy by the late 1st or early 2nd century, it was an early arbitrator to disputes over orthodoxy, and made interference in other churches beginning from at least the late 1st century (evidenced by 1 Clement). Granted, the monarchial episcopacy did not yet come to be in Rome possibly until the late 2nd century (maybe earlier though, it's debated) but it more or less came to take the place that Jerusalem may have once had during the apostolic period in the 1st century. Irenaeus of Lyons, Cyprian of Carthage, and many other Fathers attest to the primacy that Rome and its bishop had and its unique connection to St. Peter.
Romanist historical revisionism
>the monarchial episcopacy did not yet come to be in Rome possibly until the late 2nd century
You do realize this completely discredits the claims of the papacy.
Which claim specifically?
please cite your sources, like I did here
The claim that the bishop of Rome holds the very same office as Peter, and is his unique successor.
Did Peter not found the church of Rome?
That would make him the first bishop of Rome. And there is still a bishop of Rome, because Peter handed down the office of bishop to a successor.
Problem?
>Did Peter not found the church of Rome?
After Antiochia, yes.
Do we agree that Peter was the Prince of the Apostles? In accordance with the distinction in Genesis 32 28.
James was the president of the Council of Jerusalem not Peter
But when James makes his speach to the Church of Jerusalem concerning the GQ in Acts 15 he specifically appeals to the declaration of Peter as authoritative at the very start.
13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
He was president because the council was being held in the church he personally presided over. It's decorum, not an indication of rank. And the council was held there because it was specifically James' community that had problems accepting gentiles.
That's why it was important for him to address the crowd personally.
>he specifically appeals to the declaration of Peter as authoritative at the very start.
Because he was reinforcing Peter's claims as being the valid and true statements of an apostle of equivalent authority to himself in the face of resistance from those who rejected the conversion of gentiles
>Peter's claims
Not a claim. A declaration. The word James uses is ἐξηγήσατο, related in form to ἐξηγέομαι from the following link.
https://biblehub.com/greek/1834.htm
Definition: to show the way
Usage: I lead, show the way; met: I unfold, narrate, declare.
1834 eksēgéomai (from 1537 /ek, "completely out of from" intensifying 2233 /hēgéomai, "to lead by showing priority") – properly, lead out completely (thoroughly bring forth), i.e. explain (narrate) in a way that clarifies what is uppermost (has priority).
[1834 (eksēgéomai) is the root of the English terms, "exegesis, exegete."
There were other apostles who advocated for the gentiles as well, but Peter was the deciding factor. Moreover the choice of words here respects Peter as a foremost teacher and interpreter of scripture.
No he didn't.
The other definition is present in the very page that you linked, "to relate, recount, or rehearse", which is just as applicable to the verse in question: Peter recounted what happened to the other apostles, and his testimony is valid despite the doubters. in verse 15:12 before it in the same chapter the word is used to describe Paul and Barnabas recounting the fruits of their ministry. Were they also making binding declarations?
>verse 15:12
12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
So it literally still means declaration.
...in the sense of reporting
authoritatively, that's the important bit
exegesis is supposed to be authoritative
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ἐξηγέομαι
Verb
ἐξηγέομαι • (exēgéomai) first-singular present indicative
to lead (the way)
to lead (an army) or govern
to dictate
to prescribe, order
to expound, interpret
to relate, tell at length, explain
from ἡγέομαι, the ultimate root of the English word "hegemon"
Verb
ἡγέομαι • (hēgéomai) first-singular present indicative
to go before, precede; to lead the way, guide
to lead (dative) in (genitive)
(with accusative) to be leader (in a thing)
to lead, command in war
to rule, to have dominion
(post-Homeric) to believe, hold
to hold, regard (as something)
Etymological fallacy
It's not a fallacy, I'm literally just explaining to you what the word means and why it's highly relevant to the discussion.
Do you just use words like exegesis without knowing where it comes from and what it means? It's a pretty important concept for Christians you know.
We aren't discussing the word exegesis in its contemporary usage here mate, we are discussing the colloquial usage of the word in Koine Greek. The Greeks also had the word gymnasium, but when we use it today are we speaking of a nude sports centre? When Peter jumps out of the boat in John 21:7, the Greek literally says he was naked, and a literal reading of the Greek would mean that he was out fishing completely naked, but we know that that absolutely was not what happened in his cultural context. So these word games you're playing are fruitless pedantry.
>the Greek literally says he was naked, and a literal reading of the Greek would mean that he was out fishing completely naked, but we know that that absolutely was not what happened in his cultural context
IMO it would not be that weird for a boatful of dudes out fishing to be nude. And how do you know literally anything about dress codes for fishing boats in the year 0? It seems like a stretch to me.
>we are discussing the colloquial usage of the word in Koine Greek
That's why I posted the definitions of those biblical words derived from ancient sources. Because in the cultural context of the period all those implications would be taken for granted, but nowadays we have to tediously explain this to people because nobody knows ancient Greek.
I point out the etymological connections between ancient Greek words and modern English because it helps people grasp what they mean, because they actually use those words too without realizing it.
>IMO it would not be that weird for a boatful of dudes out fishing to be nude. And how do you know literally anything about dress codes for fishing boats in the year 0? It seems like a stretch to me.
Read a biblical commentary on that verse and it'll explain why he wasn't literally naked but underdressed. Modern translations render the verse as "stripped for work" or something similar instead of the literal naked.
>That's why I posted the definitions of those biblical words derived from ancient sources. Because in the cultural context of the period all those implications would be taken for granted, but nowadays we have to tediously explain this to people because nobody knows ancient Greek.
There's issues in that Homeric and Classical Greek are different from first century Koine common Greek. In Classical Greek the default meaning of gymnos in John 21:7 would have been literally naked. I was doing research on translations of the Greek version of the Psalms recently and a review of English translations commented that one translation's rendering of Psalm 2:1 as "Why have the nations pranced" resulted from the translator using a Classical Greek vocabulary rather than a Hellenistic one:
https://www.academia.edu/es/4923469/_Translating_the_Septuagint_Psalter_into_English_for_Use_in_Byzantine_Christian_Worship_Studies_on_the_Liturgies_of_the_Christian_East_Eastern_Christian_Studies_18_Leuven_MA_Peeters_2013_59_100
You're missing the point. He was nude allegorically, in other senses too.
>In Classical Greek the default meaning of gymnos in John 21:7 would have been literally naked.
Big deal man, don't be such a prude. At least he took his tunic with him.
The Latin says he's nude.
7 dicit ergo discipulus ille quem diligebat Iesus Petro Dominus est Simon Petrus cum audisset quia Dominus est tunicam succinxit se erat enim nudus et misit se in mare
>est tunicam succinxit se erat enim nudus
>nudus
Nude.
>one translation's rendering of Psalm 2:1
>Read a biblical commentary
>Modern translations
...
>The Latin says he's nude.
Nudus in Latin doesn't mean the same as the English nude:
>Adjective
>nūdus(feminine nūda,neuter nūdum)
>1. unclothed,nude,naked
>2. stripped,deprived,destitute
>3. poor,needy
>4. bare,simple,pure
>5. unadorned
https://www.wordsense.eu/nudus/
It's called a false friend:
>Examples of false friends include English embarrassed and Spanish embarazada 'pregnant'; English parents versus Portuguese parentes and Italian parenti(both meaning 'relatives'); English demand and French demander 'ask'; and English gift, German Gift 'poison', and Norwegian gift 'married'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_friend
>Nudus in Latin doesn't mean the same as the English nude
>unclothed, *nude*, naked
>it doesn't mean nude
>definition is "nude"
You can't make this shit up.
It means the same thing.
>It's called a false friend
lol no, that is desperate
"Entered English 1531 as a legal term, meaning "unsupported, not formally attested," from Latin nūdus (“naked, bare”). "
The native English word is "naked", but "nude" means literally that too and is used colloquially. Because "nudus" means naked in Latin.
Why does the idea of men at sea being casually naked bother you so much? I sense a lot of tension there.
The Venerable Bede:
The Evangelist alludes to himself here the same way he always does. He recognised our Lord either by the miracle, or by the sound of His voice, or the association of former occasions on which He found them fishing. Peter was naked in comparison with the usual dress he wore, in the sense in which we say to a person whom we meet thinly clad, You are quite bare. Peter was hare for convenience sake, as fishermen are in fishing.
https://www.ecatholic2000.com/catena/untitled-109.shtml
look man I could care less as to the details of his state of dress, it literally doesn't matter compared to his allegorical nakedness
polities have offices
there's not one that doesn't, they're organizational structures and need them to function
for example, Athens had the Archons. You know, Jesus had something to say about the Archons too. Other archons though, he was making a larger point.
Remember you're the one who compared the early Church to secular polities, not me.
Yeah politieS (plural)
The presence of offices doesn't imply episcopalianism. You're not proving your point.
>look man I could care less as to the details of his state of dress, it literally doesn't matter compared to his allegorical nakedness
Your interpretation would be valid except no ancient authors in the first 1000 years of the church whose exegeses were compiled by Aquinas ever picked up on this deep allegorical sense that you're reading into it, only that it was a matter of modesty, unless you consider your brilliance to exceed that of these great saints and doctors of the church
https://www.ecatholic2000.com/catena/untitled-109.shtml
>>Read a biblical commentary
"Whence it is plain that he was not before wholly naked, but only, after the fashion of work-men, stripped of his outer garment."
Catholic priest and exegete Cornelius a Lapide, AD 1637.
translations
Yeah, like your Catholic New American Bible, or the New Catholic Bible, or the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition, or the Jerusalem Bible.
In the definition of the word you linked from Bible Hub it cites 6 total uses of the word in the New Testament and the only one where the declarative sense is given as being used is John 1:18:
>a.to recount, rehearse: (with the accusative of the thing and the dative of person,Acts 10:8); with the accusative of thing,Luke 24:35;Acts 21:19; without an accusative, followed by relative pronoun or adverb,ὅσαἐποίησεν,Acts 15:12;καθώς, 14 (so in Greek writings fromHerodotusdown; theSept.forסִפֵר,Judges 7:13, etc.).
Acts 15:14 is included in the prior.
>b.to unfold, declare:John 1:18(namely, the things relating to God; also used in Greek writings of the interpretation of things sacred and divine, oracles, dreams, etc.; cf. Meyer at the passage;Alberti, Observationes etc., p. 207f).
None of that changes the fact that James with his very first sentence appeals directly to the word of Simon Peter, "declared how God at the first" did visit the nations.
Συμεὼν ἐξηγήσατο καθὼς πρῶτον ὁ Θεὸς ἐπεσκέψατο λαβεῖν ἐξ ἐθνῶν λαὸν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ.
>John 1:18(namely, the things relating to God; also used in Greek writings of the interpretation of things sacred and divine, oracles, dreams, etc
In this instance that word ἐξηγήσατο is being used in the same context (namely, the things relating to God) as John 1:18.
>parallel meanings
I'm telling you there's some extra cultural context behind the word ecclesia you're not quite grasping.
>from ec caleo, I summon.
it means "calling" roughly, the commission
properly it refers to the entire church, not just a part of it
And none of that changes that the usage in Acts 15:14 isn't declarative:
>Simeon has related how God first visited to take out oftheGentiles a people for His name
You keep half quoting things
>I'm telling you there's some extra cultural context behind the word ecclesia you're not quite grasping.
Retroactive eisegesis. You know what that word means right?
>it means "calling" roughly, the commission properly it refers to the entire church, not just a part of it
The word ecclesia was already in secular use before the church ever existed, when the Greeks were pagan.
>ecclesia was already in secular use
Yeah, referring to polity. You know, political decision making bodies that have necessary offices and even elections.
Does that sound familiar? What might that look like in a Christian religious context? Could there possibly be religious offices too? Hmm...
>Does that sound familiar? What might that look like in a Christian religious context? Could there possibly be religious offices too? Hmm...
Begging the question. Church offices =/= episcopal polity
Or a more corollary example, "ecclesia" in first century Greek just meant an assembly, a gathering, but in later centuries ecclesia came to mean something much more strict in the sense of a religious assembly, a church. So just because a word has a meaning with a distinct gravity to us today does not mean that its historical usage had that same character
>"ecclesia" in first century Greek just meant an assembly, a gathering
not synagogue (συναγωγή)? Pretty sure that's how you translate "a gathering".
ecclesia has more to do with "a calling" and the whole church
It seems they had parallel meanings, synagogue is derived from synago meaning I gather together, which is comprised of syn, together and ago, I lead, and referred to a place of gathering as well. While ecclesia derives from eccletos, summoned, from ec caleo, I summon.
>ἐκκλησία,ἐκκλεσιας,ἡ(fromἔκκλητοςcalled out or forth, and this fromἐκκαλέω); properly,a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place; an assembly; so used
https://biblehub.com/greek/1577.htm
So it seems that yes, synagoga was more gathering in general, while ecclesia was more properly convening.
According to the fathers who pass down this story such as Irenaeus he did not, it was both Peter and Paul which would make the pope of Rome no more the successor of Peter than he is the successor of Paul. However, Peter could not have handed down the office of bishop to a successor, since the office did not exist in the Roman church either in his day or in the next generation's day.
>we seem to have an apostolic tradition
No, the fact it does not go back to the apostles means it is *not* an apostolic tradition.
>how do Protestants explain how the Church became corrupted so quickly?
The Church became corrupted immediately. Even while the Lord walked the earth thousands left His side and one of the twelve was a devil. Much of the New Testament was written simply to correct the errors of Christians at the time. Sin is always waiting at the door and proximity in time to the apostles is no safeguard against it. Rather, the way to ward off the constant corruption of the Church is through constant reformation according to the word of God.
>the only objections we find to the episcopal polity do not come from orthodox sources but from Gnostic sources.
Obviously, churches like Rome and Corinth must have had objections, or else they would have embraced it immediately.
>No, the fact it does not go back to the apostles means it is *not* an apostolic tradition.
But it explicitly is apostolic in origin, the students of the apostles promoted it, the Pastoral epistles show evidence of an episcopal model of governance, and the Jerusalem Church already had a proto-episcopal polity.
>The Church became corrupted immediately.
Thank you for demonstrating the logical end of the Gnostic-tier doctrine of total depravity. Your assertion that the Church became corrupt is contradicted by scripture (Matthew 16:18, 1 Timothy 3:15), for the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:17, 1 Corinthians 12:12, Ephesians 4:4-13) and scripture makes no distinction between the Church here on earth which is able to exercise jurisdiction (Matthew 18:17), and the Church in heaven as the heavenly city and mystical bride in eschaton (Revelation 21:2) except logical.
>Obviously, churches like Rome and Corinth must have had objections, or else they would have embraced it.
That's anachronistically inserting your own dichotomy into the mind of the early Church.
>This is not guesswork, 1 Clement and Hermas imply a presbyterian government, not to mention explicit evidence in the form of the New Testament telling us what kind of polity the churches had before the monarchical episcopate was developed.
1 Clement and Hermas tell us there were a body of presbyters in Rome, but other sources like the ones I mentioned above also witness that there was an established bishop in Rome and Clement clearly takes the role of president in his letter. Whatever the situation it's not as clear cut as you'd like to have it. For example, Peter calls himself an elder in 1 Peter 5:1, and John does too in 2 John 1:1, does this imply these apostles had no greater authority than the other elders and that they were all equal in your view?
>the Pastoral epistles show evidence of an episcopal model of governance, and the Jerusalem Church already had a proto-episcopal polity.
No.
>Thank you for demonstrating the logical end of the Gnostic-tier doctrine of total depravity
I don't think you know what total depravity is.
>Your assertion that the blah blah blah
Since you didn't interact with anything I said when you went on this little rant, I will go ahead and ignore it in kind.
>That's anachronistically inserting your own dichotomy into the mind of the early Church.
Why are you bothering to say anything at all if you're not going to engage?
>other sources like the ones I mentioned above also witness that there was an established bishop in Rome
Yes, those other sources are from later, after the episcopate had come to Rome, unlike Clement and Hermas which are contemporary.
>Clement clearly takes the role of president in his letter
Why, because he wrote it? How do you know Clement wrote this letter, Anon, it never says that? Is it not attributed to Clement because Hermas identifies Clement as the man in Rome responsible for the church's correspondences?
>does this imply these apostles had no greater authority than the other elders and that they were all equal in your view?
No.
>no
Yes. Paul dictates jurisdiction to Titus and Timothy in Crete and Macedonia respectively and to appoint overseers therein (1 Timothy 1:3, Titus 1:5), elucidating the beginnings of a less refined monarchical episcopate. Not only that but the pastoral provide a more definite list of qualifications for the office of overseer/elder (and deacons) showing an increase in authority and greater distinction between laity and clergy emerging.
As for the Jerusalem church, James clearly exercises a greater authority over the body of elders in this city in the early apostolic age, and he is counted as the first bishop of the city within many early sources.
>I don't think you know what total depravity is.
The classic only Prots understand prot doctrine line.
>Since you didn't interact with anything I said when you went on this little rant, I will go ahead and ignore it in kind.
I accept your concession.
>Why are you bothering to say anything at all if you're not going to engage?
You're assuming Rome and Corinth rejected the monarchical episcopate because they had not fully integrated this model yet. What are you grounds for this other than an anachronistic importation of current Reformed-Catholic dialogue? There isn't any evidence for their rejection, it's a black and white fallacy and overlooks other important nuances anyway which I already discussed.
>Peter could not have handed down the office of bishop to a successor, since the office did not exist in the Roman church either in his day or in the next generation's day.
Then how did Pope Linus exist?
"earliest witness to the episcopate of Linus was Irenaeus, who in c. AD 180 wrote that "the blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate".[2]"
If that office didn't exist to be committed at that time, then Irenaeus wouldn't have said that it did.
>If that office didn't exist to be committed at that time, then Irenaeus wouldn't have said that it did.
Irenaeus misinterpreted Linus' role based on his later understanding of church structure, just like how medieval people thought figures like Alexander the Great were like medieval kings in their art
In the case like Ignatius of Antioch, who we are discussing, he speak about the Roman Church with a special importance, commenting:
>Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria, which now has God for its shepherd, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, and your lve.
Something which he ascribes to no other Church in his letters. Particularly noteworthy too is his opening in his epistle to the Romans which is quite extravagant and unlike what he writes to the other churches. The fact that he even writes to Rome is an attestation to its early importance, he states his purpose in writing is for fear that the prayers of the Roman Church will lead to a failure of his martyrdom due to their great efficacy.
Take that as you will, Orthodox contend that this is non-papal Roman primacy, Catholics have a few different responses I won't get into. The evidence is overwhelming though that from almost the start the Roman Church had an importance that none other had. I cannot possibly cover that in a Oyish post.
>2nd century is still removed from the new testament
And the writings of Ignatius hold a great deal of importance for many Christians due to their proximity with the apostolic age, their orthodoxy, and the reputation that Ignatius has for being a student of John the Apostle.
Ignatius doesn't even mention a bishop existing in Rome in any of his letters.
Samegay coping
>2nd century is still removed from the new testament
But the 16th century when Calvin and Luther lived is closer to the NT?
It comes from the fact Saint Paul and Saint Peter both died in Roman and bequeathed their Apostolic See to leaders there. Ideally, all bishops could trace their office back in an unbroken line of succession back to the Twelve. This isnt always possible, but it's also silly to claim it was somehow "made up" as a practice in the middle ages and doesn't have a history dating to the begining of the church.
how did the church in Jerusalem trace their succession to Rome if they were prior to it?
It was founded by one of the Twelve. But there are numerous areas where Peter is pointed to as the leader of the Twelve and obviously Peter and Paul are the most important Apostles in Acts.
Ok, so find the monarchical episcopate in the quoted second century source
>but it's also silly to claim it was somehow "made up" as a practice in the middle ages and doesn't have a history dating to the begining of the church
The point of apostolic succession was as a bulwark against Gnostic heresies since those figures which had been consecrated by the apostles personally had the authority to denounce any claims of "secret" knowledge which Jesus had supposedly taught to the Gnostics and nobody else. Its utility is if the ordained actually maintains the deposit of faith as entrusted to the church by the apostles in line with 2 Timothy 1:13-14. It can't be held as a claim that because of the laying on of hands itself since the time of the apostles that in the way of a magical act the end recipient is intrinsically authoritative and orthodox, since that would mean that no bishop would ever commit heresy yet we have historical bishops like Eusebius of Caesarea (a adherent of Arius' theology) or Nestorius (not just a bishop, but an archbishop) who were validly ordained going on to do just that. What was made up was the transformation of a good regulative convention into the idea of a mystical communication of powers that validates people except when it doesn't. Furthermore, since apostolic succession doesn't preclude someone from being wrong, it also doesn't preclude someone from being right even without it, unless you deny the right of the congregants of Eusebius or Nestorius to have rejected their innovations because the authority of their titles must be maintained.
>rejecting the Salaf
Meanwhile his contemporary and friend Polycarp of Smyrna the disciple of John the Apostle ran a church with Presbyterian polity (Letter to the Philippians chapters 5-6). Maybe polity isn't an issue of orthodoxy OP.
How do you know IT wasn't a Monarchical polity.
No bishop is mentioned only elders and deacons.
Bishop = Elder
You don't have apostolic succession, it's all a clown show.
>Bishop = Elder
Nope, he doesn't use the term bishop that Ignatius uses at all, and the two were friends so he was obviously aware of the concept and would have used bishop if he meant bishop.
>You don't have apostolic succession, it's all a clown show.
Apostolic succession isn't a thing.
>Apostolic succession isn't a thing.
How to spot a LARP Christian 101.
"... the Anglican, Church of the East, Eastern Orthodox, Hussite, Moravian, Old Catholic, Oriental Orthodox, Catholic and Scandinavian Lutheran traditions maintain that "a bishop cannot have regular or valid orders unless he has been consecrated in this apostolic succession".[2][3]"
"They appeal as well to other documents of the early Church, especially the Epistle of Clement.[8] In this context, Clement explicitly states that the apostles appointed bishops as successors and directed that these bishops should in turn appoint their own successors; given this, such leaders of the Church were not to be removed without cause and not in this way. "
oh nooooooooo...
LARP sisters, not like this...
the Epistle of Clement dates to literally the first century, it cannot be...
and we claimed lineage from the ancient church too...
>muh lineage
Tell me where in the Bible that that lineage gives you the authority of the apostles to rewrite everything that Christians are supposed to believe in. You know you claim far more than "muh lineage".
Matthew 18
18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
21 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, ...
Matthew 16
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Genesis 32
27 And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob.
28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.
>Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven
>if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven
>I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven
>for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed
>Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter
>called no more Jacob, but Israel
ishygddt
t b h
K and did Pete give that power to anyone else or is he alone not sat at the pearly gates taking admissions
>if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them
>where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I
"two"
"or three"
seems clear to me
>Moreoverif your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you,you have gained your brother.But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’And if he refuses to hear them, tellitto the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like aheathen and a tax collector.
>“Assuredly, I say to you,whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
That passage is about church discipline, he says to bring the brother to the congregation after as the ultimate authority if he won't listen to two or three brethren.
The "bishops" in Clement are actually presbyters:
>44:1 Our Apostles, too, by the instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ, knew that strife would arise concerning the dignity of a bishop;
>44:2 and on this account, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed the above-mentioned as bishops and deacons: and then gave a rule of succession, in order that, when they had fallen asleep, other men, who had been approved, might succeed to their ministry.
>44:3 Those who were thus appointed by them, or afterwards by other men of good repute, with the consent of the whole Church, who have blamelessly ministered to the flock of Christ with humility, quietly, and without illiberality, and who for a long time have obtained a good report from all, these, we think, have been unjustly deposed from the ministry.
>44:4 For it will be no small sin in us if we depose from the office of bishop those who blamelessly and piously have made the offerings.
>44:5 Happy are the presbyters who finished their course before, and died in mature age after they had borne fruit; for they do not fear lest any one should remove them from the place appointed for them.
>44:6 For we see that ye have removed some men of honest conversation from the ministry, which had been blamelessly and honourably performed by them.
The bishop in 1 Clement 44:1 = the presbyter in 44:5. There are only 2 offices, presbyters and deacons, which is also the structure of governance that is described by Polycarp as being present in the Philippian church.
A body of presbyters does not imply an egalitarian presbyterian mode of government. The evidence from this time period, in the NT and the Fathers, indicates divisions existed that were not merely functional but formal and indicated differences in powers within the college.
What divisions?
Please see
My response to you is that having a position of oversight does not preclude there being equality among the presbyters. Have you never heard of the concept of a prime minister being primus inter pares, first among equals?
Doesn’t matter. Monarchical episcopate isn’t reflected in the Bible, nor in the Didache, nor in Hermas, nor in the letters of St. Clement. The practice recorded by St. Ignatius wasn’t universal. Even St. Jerome records the Alexandrian model, which is likely older
https://reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com/2023/11/28/robert-rollock-on-bishops-and-elders-as-synonymous-terms/
Bishop and presbytery was used interchangeably in the beginning. A bishop was the overseer of the local church and the deacons servants of the church. Later came a ruling bishop with a council of presbyters as his assessors.
Time to come to the TRUE Church.
Byzantine rite Catholicism?
TRUE*
* by government authority
The epistles of Ignatius are great evidence that the monarchical episcopate developed after the death of the last apostle. In particular his epistle to the Romans, a western church which had not yet embraced the innovation, is noticeably lacking in references to the bishop which are so commonplace in his other letters. Combined with other evidence of the state of the contemporary church of Rome, this paints a picture that the church at the time (and for a bit after) retained the biblical model of presbyterial government, as had been established by Christ's chosen apostles.
The quote from Calvin is authentic and often cited out of context by Rome's propagandists. He may very well have been referring to all of Ignatius' epistles, but it would only be due to the difficulty in distinguishing the authentic epistles from the pseudo-Ignatian epistles which sullied their credibility for centuries. The often ignored context of the statement was a defense of the deity of Christ against neo-Arian Anabaptists who claimed Ignatius as a supporter due to the spurious epistles. The full sentence OP's quote comes from also mentions Lent, because the actual forgeries he was criticizing also mention Lent, which was not practiced in the days of the church father but was practiced in the days of the Arian monk who forged epistles in his name.
The main problem for Protestantism in all this is that here we seem to have an apostolic tradition not explicitly delineated about in scripture yet preserved in the writings of the apostolic fathers.
Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Symrna were both students of John the Apostle, and both practiced a form of episcopal polity, and the Fathers all witness to the idea that the apostles appointed men to succeed them (1 Clement 42:4-5, 1 Clement 44:1-3, Against Heresies 3:3:1, Against Heresies 4:26:2). Given that this form of church governance was adopted so quickly by the Church, including by the very students of the apostles, how do Protestants explain how the Church became corrupted so quickly? It's interesting to note that the only objections we find to the episcopal polity do not come from orthodox sources but from Gnostic sources.
>an apostolic tradition
Not infallible
>there was neither equality among the apostles themselves (Matthew 16:18, John 21:15-17),
You're reading inequality into verses that can be read without it
>Combined with other evidence of the state of the contemporary church of Rome, this paints a picture that the church at the time (and for a bit after) retained the biblical model of presbyterial government, as had been established by Christ's chosen apostles.
The argument that the Church in Rome did not embrace an episcopal polity is largely an argument from silence. Though I am personally inclined to believe the Roman Church had not fully integrated this model until the mid-late 2nd century, early witnesses like Irenaeus and Hegesippus both attest to a succession of bishops in Rome from the 1st century, and neither Clement or Ignatius in their letters actually describe the polity of the Church of Rome, modern scholars have only been able to guess what it might have been due to lack of direct evidence. Rather, the picture painted is that the early Church model of government was episcopocentric (in the words of Eastern Orthodox scholar John D. Zizioulas) rather than presbyterial, that there had always been men in the Church appointed by the apostles who had the full powers of the Church to offer the Eucharist and to appoint their own successors, later on the office became divided and Catholics still recognize that bishops and elders are simply divisions in the priesthood which the Council of Trent (Session XXIII) also speaks about.
>The argument that the Church in Rome did not embrace an episcopal polity is largely an argument from silence. Though I am personally inclined to believe the Roman Church had not fully integrated this model until the mid-late 2nd century, early witnesses like Irenaeus and Hegesippus both attest to a succession of bishops in Rome from the 1st century, and neither Clement or Ignatius in their letters actually describe the polity of the Church of Rome, modern scholars have only been able to guess what it might have been due to lack of direct evidence
This is not guesswork, 1 Clement and Hermas imply a presbyterian government, not to mention explicit evidence in the form of the New Testament telling us what kind of polity the churches had before the monarchical episcopate was developed.
>there had always been men in the Church appointed by the apostles who had the full powers of the Church to offer the Eucharist and to appoint their own successors
I don't see how this is distinctive at all. There were such men even while the apostles were alive, and the name of their office was elder.
>Catholics still recognize that bishops and elders are simply divisions in the priesthood which the Council of Trent (Session XXIII) also speaks about.
But it has been a constant complaint for about 500 years that our reformers were merely priests and not bishops and therefore supposedly lacked the authority to reform the Church. If it is simply a division in the priesthood, did they not have the full authority to do what they did from their ordination alone as we maintain? In any case the greatest significance of the development of the episcopate is the fact that Rome took so long to accept it that we can see it, and because of that the chain to Peter is severed.
>I don't see how this is distinctive at all. There were such men even while the apostles were alive, and the name of their office was elder.
Well if you mean to say that the episcopacy was a later innovation out of a presbyterial form of government, the evidence is not on your side. There were bishops from the start who were appointed as successors of the apostles that were able to preform all duties proper to their office, it was not an innovation.
>If it is simply a division in the priesthood, did they not have the full authority to do what they did from their ordination alone as we maintain?
I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you asking to what degree the potestas of the office is delegated to them? Clearly there is a distinction in power between bishop and elders, despite both of them being priests, but what exactly this means is still a matter of discussion among theologians even now. Can elders ordain other elders without the bishop? These questions are still being asked. The trend since Vatican II has generally been affirmative but that this is against the common law of the Church.
>In any case the greatest significance of the development of the episcopate is the fact that Rome took so long to accept it that we can see it, and because of that the chain to Peter is severed.
I don't see how that is the case. Clement mentions that bishops were appointed by the apostles or by other choice men with the approval of the whole Church. This is still the case when new Popes are elected, since Popes are elected when certain bishops (specifically the cardinals) elevate one of their own to the office, and then the whole Church consents to this election.
>Well if you mean to say that the episcopacy was a later innovation out of a presbyterial form of government, the evidence is not on your side
We have already established that this is not the case, you already conceded that it was an innovation.
>There were bishops from the start who were appointed as successors of the apostles that were able to preform all duties proper to their office
This is an assertion, one which was already demonstrated to be false in this thread. The elders were appointed as "successors" inasmuch as theirs is the ordinary office to continue until the return of Christ while the office of apostle is extraordinary and was only intended to exist for a time. We have seen that they did not pick out particular men and appoint them to a non-existent office of bishop to rule over the other elders.
>Clearly there is a distinction in power between bishop and elders
Which is clearly not the apostolic tradition.
>I don't see how that is the case
Because, once again, there was nothing like a pope when Peter was alive. Which means the pope cannot be his heir.
>Yes, those other sources are from later, after the episcopate had come to Rome, unlike Clement and Hermas which are contemporary.
Except Irenaeus and Hegesippus are transmitting traditions which had a pre-history to them, they aren't introducing anything ad hoc. The burden of proof is on you to show that Clement and Hermas advocate for an egalitarian presbyterian form of government when the data suggests otherwise, there was neither equality among the apostles themselves (Matthew 16:18, John 21:15-17), neither among the elders as you already conceded when you responded in the negative that Peter and John's authority was equal to that of the rest of the elders, neither was there equality between the elders of the Jerusalem church and James, nor among Titus and the elders he appointed, nor Clement's authority as president of the body in Rome. Just because a body of elders is mentioned by both does not imply an egalitarian form of governance.
>How do you know Clement wrote this letter, Anon, it never says that?
There's no reason to think that it wasn't written by him. Scholars agree it dates to the late 1st century and all our early sources about the letter say Clement wrote it including Dionysius of Corinth, Hegesippus, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Eusebius.
>This is an assertion, one which was already demonstrated to be false in this thread. The elders were appointed as "successors" inasmuch as theirs is the ordinary office to continue until the return of Christ while the office of apostle is extraordinary and was only intended to exist for a time.
This is demonstrably false, already we see the distinction between the power of ordination that bishops have in Titus 1:5 and the power of the presbyters. Not only that but the Fathers as witnesses to apostolic tradition give indication of a true sacrificial priesthood as part of the episcopate:
>Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices (Clement 44:3)
>Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice-even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God.
>Ignatius of Antioch Epistle to the Philippians 1
>Again there is John, who leant back on the Lord’s breast, and who became a sacrificing priest wearing the mitre, a martyr and a teacher; he too sleeps in Ephesus
(Polycrates of Ephesus, Church History III.31)
There are too many references by the Fathers to the sacrificial priesthood to write in 1000 books.
>Because, once again, there was nothing like a pope when Peter was alive. Which means the pope cannot be his heir.
This is just wrong since the early Fathers like Hegesippus provide a list of Popes from Peter to their present time.
>This is just wrong since the early Fathers like Hegesippus provide a list of Popes from Peter to their present time.
And their testimony isn't reliable
>This is demonstrably false, already we see the distinction between the power of ordination that bishops have in Titus 1:5 and the power of the presbyters.
Yet in Acts 20:17 Paul calls the Ephesian elders to visit him in Miletus and then calls them all "bishops" in Acts 20:28 in the underlying Greek.
>Calvinist sisters, we lost...
Anglican here, who holds to Calvinist soteriology in the Thirty Nine Articles while under a bishop with apostolic succession. Cope.
Is Dirk a Roman Catholic troll that purposely gives moronic protestant takes or is he actually moronic
I don't think this question is worthy of it's own thread, so can someone explain to me like I'm stupid why the Lord's supper SHOULDN'T be interpreted as symbolic? (I.e. His speech about bread and flesh and wine and blood was a foreshadowing of the events that were to occur and how salvation is given rather than a literal command to regularly cannibalize God).
Please use biblical references to add context
Is means is
Simple as
I'll try. but it's hard because I'm stupid and stupidly explaining to someone as if they were stupid too is foolhardy.
1 Corinthians 11
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
>eateth and drinketh damnation to himself
>not discerning the Lord's body
not "not discerning the *symbol of* the Lord's body"
no, not discerning the "Lord's body" "as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup"
Thanks. This passage is why I don't participate because I still have questions and I don't want to do it wrongly or half-heartedly. I want to do right by God, as much as a puny human can.
Hopefully I will get a few more replies without derailing the thread.
Yeah, but is can be used metaphorically or symbolically to relay a message, and it is all the time.
I could give a picture of a cute kitten and a rowdy puppy and say "this is my daughter, and this is my son" but my son and daughter are not literal animals, but tiny people, and the aspects of the animals are being used to relay a message about their typical behavior.
Or an gif of a demolation, I could say "this is my life right now" Obviously that us relaying a metaphorical message about how certain aspects of my life are currently negative, thereby represented by a crumbling building.
People may often see something and say "this/that is so me," but the item, person, behavior, or event is not literally that person.
The context of the situation does not show his words were symbolic.
Your image makes a comparison to Genesis, and yet God's words there were not wholly literal.
Adam and Eve did not die a physical death, which is how "you will surely die" would easily be interpreted, but rather died a spiritual death by disobeying the Lord. It even said to send then out fron the garden before they eat of the tree of life and "become like us" which seems to imply knowledge+immortality are two aspects of God's nature.
Even if it is interpreted that while living in harmony with God in the garden they would be immortal, they still did not die an immediate death, but rather brought death to creation.
I'm not trying to be difficult, but especially after having kids I am very critical of how language is used because I myself have to choose my words carefully and correctly when explaining things so that my meanings and intentions are precise.
So in Papist theology Jesus committed auto-cannibalism
As a protestant, I always figured this did happen organically. It makes sense to maintain unity. My problem with it is I don't think the bishop of Rome was supposed to be a priest-king (also the church won't stop protecting pedos). I think the Orthodox have it right on church structure, but I can't get behind icons. There's a point where reverence becomes worship, and I feel like they're too close to that line. I'm not comfortable with the way Catholics treat Mary, but it seems to mostly be on the right side of that line.
>As a protestant, I always figured this did happen organically. It makes sense to maintain unity. My problem with it is I don't think the bishop of Rome was supposed to be a priest-king (also the church won't stop protecting pedos). I think the Orthodox have it right on church structure, but I can't get behind icons. There's a point where reverence becomes worship, and I feel like they're too close to that line. I'm not comfortable with the way Catholics treat Mary, but it seems to mostly be on the right side of that line.
It's not worship. It's due to tendency of the main churches to be very incarnational. First with Christ being the Word made flesh and God expressing himself in physical form. But Orthodox and Catholic take this incarnational view of things in other ways. In sacramentals, liturgy, church building and ornament, gestures, outward signs of respect.
Nobody talks about this, but it's in stark contrast to the gnostic habit of eschewing all of that and focusing on only the spiritual nature of Christianity. But it too went to it's own extremes and started eschewing the physical world in and of itself.
Both got off track, but Gnostics moreso. Protestants didn't quite reform to the proper balance as they should have, and seemingly wanted to imitate israelites and kept referring to an older commandment about imagery. Forgetting the importance and new revelation of the incarnational reality of Christ themselves. Just not going so far as Gnostics.
The Gospel of John and his Epistles points the way. Highly spiritual and physical at once.
>That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of Life-1 John 1:1
Cope. You idolatry was invented in the eighth century and that's why half the church rejected it before you spread your corruption through deception instead
False flagging atheist posted this thread, obviously.
Don't you have some kids to rape, you SJW communist israelite?
>Calvinist sisters
troony Christians lol...
How strange.
calvinists getting destroyed in another thread i love to see it
You're gonna have to explain to me why this matters. So what if Calvin was wrong about some letters of Ignatius being authentic? Doesn't it just mean he disagrees with Ignatius?
>just mean he disagrees with Ignatius
Yes, in a word. But more than that, he disagrees so much with him that he'll outright call something Ignatius really wrote fake just to discredit it.
That's insulting to Ignatius personally, as if he was less a Christian than Calvin for writing what he did.
>why this matters
It matters because Calvin *needs* certain long held Christian institutions and practices to be fraudulent for his theology to be coherent.
His means of appearing authentic is built mostly on pointing at other Christians and saying they're fake, but don't worry WE are the real elect.
Gross conflation of a reformed ecclesiastical polity with a reformed doctrine of election. Outright lie.
Calvinism is not Christian.
Why do you have to lie about it to make that point?
not that anon
it's okay to make your opinion heard
but you should say "not that anon" before hand to avoid unnecessary confusion
Not a lie it's the truth. Calvinism is Satanic. I'd even say it's just as if not more wicked than Roman Catholicism.
I'm not lying, or conflating anything.
And I'm not talking about "polity" either. I'm talking about why Calvin said the 7 letters of Ignatius are frauds, and don't belong to him even though modern scholarship firmly repudiates that position.
The 5 points are an abomination IMO. Some more than others, a lot more.
If you're not conflating then you're just an idiot. Calvinism isn't restorationist.
my verbal IQ is easily a full standard deviation higher than yours though
sorry that "modern scholarship" disagrees strongly with your idol m8
>restorationist
cool buzzword
Post test result
I can eyeball it usually. You know, reading and shit.
Did you actually take an IQ test, one that included a verbal component? As someone who has actually studied the topic of psychometrics, let me tell you that these results are way more useful on a population level than for individuals.
No but I'm interested if you have a suggestion
Don't, it's a ploy.
But why ask me to post results if you haven't been tested?
You brought it up and I didn't
You called me an idiot and I corrected you. It's obvious I'm right, your rhetoric is abysmal.
>God created 99% of humanity to torture them forever. There is nothing they can do about this. God does this for his own good pleasure. If he has not revealed Calvinistic gnosis to you then even if you go to church and pray to God he will torture you for all eternity. Indeed, 90% or Christians today and 99.999% until 1500 are headed to Hell.
When Christ says "seek and you shall find," he means "if you are elect you will be forced to seek and find, otherwise you will burn forever no matter how hard you seek."
When the Bible says God came for all in many places, when I John says specifically "the ENTIRE world," this just means "God came to save the small group of elected and to torture most doe eternity."
There were actually two miracles. The Incarnation, the smaller miracle, which actually saves absolutely no one because salvation is through election and Christ coming causes absolutely no one to believe (in the right way).
Then the higher miracle came, when God sent his blessed Calvin to reveal his true message.
Totally not a servant to Satan, BTW! It's just that all Christians were wrong for 1500 years until the one true Calvin could come to tell us how the Lord loves torturing humanity.
BTW, you must reread the Bible the right way, by having passages mean the opposite of what they say, so that the greater miracle of the blessed Calvin be upon you, so remember to never study any other tradition less the Lord of Torture be offended. Praise be our Calvin!
Everything you just said is Pelagian
Like 10 is instructive for how incredibly right Calvin is:
>On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
> “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
>He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.”
>“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live."
>"J/K, I picked who can be saved based on unfathomable reasons before the world began. I decided to make most wicked, for my own pleasure, and to torment them forever for my enjoyment. If you ain't got it, frick off and die, then get tortured by demons."
Matthew 19 is good too.
>And behold, a man came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” 17 And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” 18 He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, 19 Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 20 The young man said to him, “All these I have kept. What do I still lack?” 21 Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” 22 When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions. And then Jesus called out to him "just joking, you aren't Elect, I have destined you for burning for my own pleasure since the world began, slave."
Or another good one:
>O poor Jerusalem, if only you has repented. Unfortunately, that is metaphysically impossible. I do not want you to repent which is why it won't happen, I am giving you over to Satan, lol."
ok and? It's God's right to do as he please reprobate
Lmao, Calvinism is trash. Who even falls for this crap? A God that foreordains me to Hell is not the God of the Bible.
How quick, I wonder, did abrahomosexual scheme to have bishops that you pay money to became a thing.
Surely for a few centuries they couldn't deal with freethinkers and heretics and enforce their rules, themselves being outlaws.