Catholicism: Aristotelian. Orthodoxy: Platonic. Protestantism: ???

Catholicism: Aristotelian
Orthodoxy: Platonic
Protestantism: ???

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nominalism for Most Prots.
    Aristotelianism for Lutherans.
    Literalism for Fundamentalist.

  2. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Prots problem is that they refuse to make it rational to a degree that isn't just mysticism, it's literally just incoherence.
    Most of them when asked are solo scriptura vs sola scriptura. But they don't understand how the canon was formed, which was by councils and church fathers.

    A) The Canon was collected and determined by councils.
    B) The trinity and other important concepts which you can't get solely from the book came from councils.

    And yet, prots decide at some point that councils stop being divinely inspired. How do they know when this occurred? This is never explained.

    >t. portestant

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      >>t. portestant
      Shut it, papist. We can smell the idolatry and pedophilia oozing from every single one of your pores.

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        Kek.
        No I probably have more orthodox sympathies than the average prot, but I am a confirmed member of the prots.

    • 9 months ago
      Dirk

      In my experience it's only protestants who can explain the development of the canon

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        Not true.
        >Where did the Bible come from?
        >Catholics: The Church
        >Protestants: REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

        • 9 months ago
          Nega-Dirk

          >Where did the Bible come from?
          >Catholics: God
          >Protestants: God
          ftfy, you are welcome.

          [...]
          yeah, bro, I'm pretty sure that the pentecostals vomiting and casting spells in their pastor's garage know their early Catholic Church history very well, lmao.

          Please stop comparing all Protestants to Pentecostals, it’s dishonest, a rash judgment & sinful. It’s healthier for your soul to love and be fair to your opponents.

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        Typically no normie knows church history, but protestants know less than Catholics who go to their church or whatever they call its adult ed courses on wednesday nights or whatever. Meanwhile they don't understand the bible very well and can't qoute much from the text. Prots tend to know the geography/historical context of the books better.

        Im not sure what lay orthodox know or understand about either subject. There aren't very many of them in america.

        • 9 months ago
          Dirk

          Also not in my experience. Protestants both know biblical history and church history better than others because they're simply more observant and their education system is more robust, especially higher ed.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            We're talking about the laity here.

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        Also not in my experience. Protestants both know biblical history and church history better than others because they're simply more observant and their education system is more robust, especially higher ed.

        yeah, bro, I'm pretty sure that the pentecostals vomiting and casting spells in their pastor's garage know their early Catholic Church history very well, lmao.

    • 9 months ago
      Nega-Dirk

      >Most of them when asked are solo scriptura
      Not in my experience.
      t. Catholic.
      >But they don't understand how the canon was formed
      Don’t understand, or just disagree with the Apostlic churches?
      >which was by councils and church fathers.
      No from the general Protestant perspective I’ve interacted with the Scripture was always God-Breathed and the early councils just agree to set the canon based on what books were God-Breathed and what weren’t.
      It’s like saying “oh no the trinity isn’t actually doctrine because the doctrine was only formed in 325AD”, something being formalised doesn’t mean that that thing didn’t exist or was not recognised prior.

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        Regarding Eusebius and the New Testament canon, we will use the well-known passage in his Ecclesiastical History (3.25.1-7). We also use an earlier passage (3.3.5-7) in the same book regarding the Epistle to the Hebrews and Shepherd of Hermas, where both are classified as 'disputed'. In the absence of any official list of the canonical writings, Eusebius finds it simplest to count the votes of his witnesses, and by this means to classify all the writings into four categories:

        Despite Eusebius' good intentions, he has been unable to present a tidy listing. For example, he lists the Revelation of John in both the recognized and spurious classes. For more discussion of these problems, see [Metzger] pp. 201-206. For a visual summary of Eusebius' classification see the Cross Reference Table.

        It was disputed. Resolving that is one of the important problems every Christiaan faces. I am a prot because on the whole I agree with them the most. But the tension of canon formation and sola scriptura is a real one, that someone honestly seeking god must face.

        • 9 months ago
          Nega-Dirk

          That’s a whole lotta words that seem to me to be largely irrelevant.
          Is scripture God-Breathed, yes or no?
          If no, then scripture is fallible, & therefore we might not want to trust it.
          If yes, then it’s canonicity (it’s truth as Gods Word) exists irrespective of acknowledgement by man.
          If the canon exists irrespective of acknowledgement by man then the canon could not have been created by man, it was discovered by man.
          We should be eternally grateful to the Early Church for listening to the Holy Spirit that they may find that which was God-Breathed, however the moment God inspired the Gospel, that Gospel was God-breathed.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            The question isn't whether it is. It's that if it is, and as Christians we believe it is, and it was effected through councils and fathers, then when exactly did those councils/fathers lose the spirit? That is the question. It has nothing to do with the pope or his authority. It's to do with the authority of the whole of Christendom up to the first schism.

            How do prots make that determination? How do they know Luther was right in his choice to leave out some books?

            It's a blind spot for prots.

          • 9 months ago
            Nega-Dirk

            >It's that if it is, and as Christians we believe it is, and it was effected through councils and fathers, then when exactly did those councils/fathers lose the spirit?
            Well that’s a question you will never get a consistent or uniform answer from because like Christians in general, Protestantism isn’t a monolith.
            Most Protestant I’ve interacted with don’t view everything up until a set date, council or event as infallible because they view only the gospel as God breathed.
            But I would direct your Protestant questions to Dirk or maybe watch some Gavin Ortlund or something.
            >It's to do with the authority of the whole of Christendom up to the first schism.
            How did you determine that the Church lost the spirit at Ephesus?

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't know the answer. But I admit not having a way of knowing is a weak point. Also, Luther removing stuff is a weak spot. I've read his stuff, and while he's the founder of my sect, I don't really find him very convincing on much of anything.
            But I can never be a catholic so long as the mary stuff and the scholasticism remains ingrained in that org.

          • 9 months ago
            Nega-Dirk

            >Also, Luther removing stuff is a weak spot.
            Well that’s why if I was to ever go Protestant I probably wouldn’t be a Lutheran. The only thing I can really sympathise with isn’t that he didn’t leave he was kicked out. However I would still be a Protestant because I would be a Palamite.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            A lot of prots agreed with his edits while saying he was dumb on tons of other issues though. I just think it's a weak spot.

            How do we know Luther was inspired in his choices? Is there some sort of Christian Mandate of Heaven where if you get enough followers and win enough wars against the current theological consensus you're automatically right? I just don't get that bit. I don't think it's as cut and dry as they say.

          • 9 months ago
            Dirk

            >removing stuff
            What are you alluding to?

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Eusebius
          Oh yeah, let's listen to the epic traditional church father who literally invented cesaro papism

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            You really think he was lying? I don't think you genuinely hold that belief.

            >removing stuff
            What are you alluding to?

            apocrypha etc. but the church itself disagreed about those books as well. just continues to highlight my central point that canon formation was complicated, and protestants allowing the fathers say, but then not allowing them further authority is inconsistent.

          • 9 months ago
            Dirk

            >apocrypha etc
            I still don't know what you mean
            Do you think the fathers held to the tridentine canon?

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't really want to go off into that. I'm still waiting for an answer about how it's supposed to be decided when exactly the fathers and councils lost their way.

            By what means exactly are we able to objectively know this?

          • 9 months ago
            Dirk

            The reason it was a question at the time of the reformation is that the church had not ruled in any decisive sense on the canon. It was an open question. The protestants appealed to israeli tradition and the early church, which is why the protestant canon is today more similar to that of the early church.
            http://bible-researcher.com/canon4.html

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Im not worried about the canon. I already said I accept the councils decision on the canon. I'm saying, if we accept the authority of the fathers and councils opinions in forming the canon (which manifestly did occur), then at what point did they lose their way and stop being relevant.

            Was it 300? 400? 500?

            >The canon of the Catholic Church was affirmed by the Council of Rome (AD 382), the Synod of Hippo (AD 393), the Council of Carthage (AD 397), the Council of Carthage (AD 419), the Council of Florence (AD 1431–1449) and finally, as an article of faith, by the Council of Trent (AD 1545–1563).

          • 9 months ago
            Dirk

            Did you click the link

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >http://bible-researcher.com/canon4.html
            I did. Luther was a catholic monk working out of the catholic canon though. So what the councils said is what actually ended up in protestant hands.
            He didn't go back and read all the commentators individually and come to an objective decision. The key factor was what was officially approved.

  3. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Kantian.

  4. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    The real better way of dividing it would be
    >Western Christianity (Roman Catholic and Protestant) = Aristotelian
    >Eastern Christianity (Eastern Catholic and Orthodox) = Platonist

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *