/lit/ - Literature

what's this guy's FUCKING problem?

Roman Catholic scholar and member of the Pontifical Historical Commission, Eamon Duffy puts it rather starkly,

>These stories [of the Petrine origin of the Papacy] were to be accepted as sober history by some of the greatest minds of the early Church — Origen, Ambrose, Augustine. But they are pious romance, not history, and the fact is that we have no reliable accounts either of Peter’s later life or the manner or place of his death. Neither Peter nor Paul founded the Church at Rome, for there were Christians in the city before either of the Apostles set foot there. Nor can we assume, as Irenaeus did, that the Apostles established there a succession of bishops to carry on their work in the city, for all the indications are that there was no single bishop at Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the Apostles. In fact, wherever we turn, the solid outlines of the Petrine succession at Rome seem to blur and dissolve.

Perhaps we could regard this as a rogue liberal Catholic scholar. Unfortunately, Duffy is not the only Roman Catholic persuaded by the evidence. With the Imprimatur of Thomas A. Boland, Archbishop of Newark,6 Raymond Brown states,

>The supposition that, when Peter did come to Rome (presumably in the 60’s), he took over and became the first bishop represents a retrojection of later church order…our evidence would suggest that the emergence of a single bishop, distinct from the college of presbyter-bishops, came relatively late in the Roman church, perhaps not until well into the 2nd century. Leaders such as Linus, Cletus, and Clement, known to us from the early Roman Church, were probably prominent presbyter-bishops but not necessarily ‘monarchical’ bishops.

He starkly explains,
>The presbyter-bishops described in the NT were not in any traceable way the successors of the Twelve apostles

I half-suspect these Aquinas posts are from falseflagging atheists highlighting the worst arguments of thousand year old theists

ITT: authors who have never been refuted

>>15397025
John Calvin

>Retroactively refutes Christian Existentialism

Did Kierkegaard bother reading him?

I'm thinking about joining a Reformed church.

No but he was.

>*ends your theology*

Imagine reading the Bible and not coming away believing in limited atonement.

We've been over this /lit/.

Ephesians 2
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

>>13915012
>That said, god is false
You know God exists.
Romans 1
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
>long beards do not confer legitimacy.
You are correct.

>blocks your free will

>>13734257
Ironically determinism is the most correct religion that hasn’t been realized yet. All other religions presuppose two ideals:
>man is free and must not be controlled
>man is free and must be controlled
Determinism separates from the latter in that
>man is controlled and must be guided
Here we have arise a new theory of life which in itself brings about a more true and pure interpretation of man, life, and existence in general. Many will argue that “if man isn’t free, than he will either become insane and act in psychosis, or he will become depressed perform the act of suicide.” In reality, man is already stuck between those two ideals. Determinism sets man truly free in that he does not hear the burden of responsibility for that which is outside of his immediate understanding. Instead, man is allowed to contingency of being free within parameters that if noticed, he is able to change with his primordial and existential desire for completeness.

Who is your favorite theologian? For me it’s John Calvin.

I've already read the Westminster Confession.

What's your honest opinion of this guy?

>>10225525