/lit/ - Literature

Here is the book in question, which focuses on the intellectual heft and momentum among young people in urban settings. Very exciting to be a part of it. Its finally something nonlarpy but still aggressively Christian and traditional.

>>19453835
God bless you for coming over to our side. Christ died for your sins.

>>19453835
>>19453841
Hey king I have some good forum recommendations for you when you're ready. This place is swarming with braindead catholics who spout the same apologetic talking points in the same phrases every thread. But now that you're a real Christian you need to spend less time here anyway. Places like this are for the incel catholics without families who don't go to church. They circle jerk here to feel better about their crappy lives. Focus on your men's group not 4chan.

Welcome to the true Christian church. Read about the spiritual deadness of people like Mother Theresa. The catholic church is full of such handwringing about why their religion doesn't lead to spiritual fulfillment. They call it a test. In reality, they commit the unforgivable sin and have their hearts permanently closed by God for the rest of their lives until they go to hell.

Mother Theresa from the moment she took her vows never felt close to God. Catholics say things like God was testing her or didn't need to give her such consolations. Nah. She blasphemed the Holy Spirit. So do many catholic clergy, which is why they rape kids. God gave them over to their vicious ways.

How much of protestant and evangelical churches is "correct"?
i.e. which of the many subdivisions there are right?

>>19453934
Didn't believe you but I just checked this out.
https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/faith-and-character/faith-and-character/mother-teresas-long-dark-night.html
>For more than fifty years following her initial visions and locutions, Mother Teresa was wrapped in a dark, pitiless silence.

She only once more heard the voice of God, and she believed the doors of heaven had been closed and bolted against her. The more she longed for some sign of his presence, the more empty and desolate she became.

Holy shit that bitch really did commit the unforgivable sin. Catholics beware. You can shut the door to salvation permanently with your religion.

>>19453967
What is that sin?

No fatso in the bunch
iz based

>>19453958
False premise. Protestants believe in the concept of adiaphora. All evangelicals hold to the five Solas and biblical inerrancy. Regardless of other disagreements that don't matter for salvation, Baptist and Lutheran evangelicals have more in common than a liberal and conservative catholic, and far more than a tradcath.

>>19454007
Knowing who Christ is and calling him and his works satanic. Catholics know Christ but willing transform a church they call "his" into a satanic spectacle with idol worship. By doing this, they attribute to Christ what is Satan's. This is why the clergy is especially affected. Many regular Catholics may not be active participants in this evil.

>>19454025
Right. Now take that grin out of your face and answer seriously.

>>19454037
you've had a satisfactory answer but refuse to accept it. real Christians don't hold to the weird premises that you do. that's your problem, not mine. reformed Christianity that adheres to the two major reformed confessions are the true church, but that doesn't preclude other Christians. except catholics.

>>19454025
Never thought about it that way, thanks anon. That really completely dismantled the whiny catholic argument about muh 40000 churches.

>>19454025
ah, got it. thanks! Was a little bit hazy on it.

>>19454037
What are you talking about you nutjob, he answered the question clearly. You're definitely ESL

>>19454076
anytime, God bless

>>19454076
>>19454061
One of the most popular objections to sola Scriptura among Catholic epologists is the allegation that sola Scriptura is a “blueprint for chaos.” The Protestant rule of faith has generated “33,000” mutually contradictory Protestant denominations–or so goes the argument

However, this objection poses a dilemma for the Catholic epologist. If these are mutually contradictory denominations, then in what sense are they all “Protestant”? You can’t very well classify them under the same rubric unless all “33,000” denominations share a core identity.

So the very objection to Protestant diversity tacitly assumes that all Protestant denominations have a common denominator. They must have something essentially in common that makes all of them “Protestant.”

So the Catholic epologist needs to begin with his general definition of “Protestant.” If, however, there’s a general definition of “Protestant,” then whatever diversity there exists among Protestant denominations can only be measured against the benchmark of their fundamental unity as “Protestant” denominations.

The analogy is: Protestants are standing around, looking up at the sun pretty much directly overhead, and disagreeing over whether it's 11:47 AM, 11:51 AM or 12:03 PM by Greenwich Mean Time (the Greenwich clock not being revealed before Judgment Day).

Whereas Catholics are all looking at an ancient clock (which - they are very proud to say - has not been re-set in 2,000, or at least 1,700, years) and agreeing that it's 3 in the morning.

The liberal Catholics agree that it's 3 in the morning but deny that this in any way means one should not be wearing sunglasses.

The conservative Catholics insist that the fact Protestants can't agree on the exact time, going by the sun, means that sunlight is insufficient to read the clock by, and that if anyone shall dare to profess to maintain otherwise, by speech or any other overt act, he shall become subject to such penalties prescribed by law as the local Ordinary shall think fit to impose. Thus they are standing in the noonday sun shining approved flashlights on the Ancient Clock so they can read it.

>>19454139
what about orthos?

>>19454037
Why don't we drop the 41K denominations figure. That's highly misleading. Most Christians belong to handful of major denominations, viz. Baptist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Lutheran, Wesleyan, Pentecostal. You might say there are different Baptist or Presbyterian denominations, but these are families of denominations. They often have identical theology. The substantive distinction is between confessional/conservative and progressive Baptists, Presbyterians, &c. Most Christians belong to a handful of larger denominations that represent a historically stable package of theological beliefs. Even independent churches are apt to have a doctrinal stance identical to one of the standard denominations. These distinctions are necessary to correct a Catholic apologetic trope against sola scriptura and "pervasive interpretive pluralism".

This trades on equivocal usage regarding what constitutes a denomination. Do we count all Baptist denominations as separate denominations or as representatives of the same faith tradition? It's really a species/subspecies distinction.

I already anticipate the distinction between confessional/conservative denominations and progressive denominations, so you're objection is behind the curve. While local Baptist churches are technically autonomous, what makes them Baptist is affiliation with a particular faith-tradition.

I also don't know what Catholics mean by "this is how chaos happens".

No denomination has a more elaborate authority structure and accountability system than Roman Catholicism, but that hasn't preserved it from "chaos" over the centuries.

>>19454139
>>19454156
I love when shitty catholic apologetics get completely debunked. Its just a shame anyone needs to explain this obvious fact to begin with.

>>19453835
Bros, that church looks like home. I wanna join too. Will I finally get my wheat field based trad wife here?

>>19454220
Pol memes aren't allowed, but yes given catholic women are notorious sluts, or just elderly. Evangelical churches are the only place. If you're in a city, definitely Presbyterian then.

>>19453835
This thread makes me wanna coooonvert. What do, bros?

how do protties even know what the real church is? which denomination is true?

>>19454306
are catholics really this dense? they can't be this fucking dumb, can they brehs?

>>19453835
If Catholicism has become too fake and gay for you, the Protestants have gotten even worse. Come for the blue haired lesbian preachers, stay for mestizo child trafficking.

>>19454342
>Protestants have gotten even worse
Why lie like this when everyone already knows its not true. This is purely performative at this point. We all know mainline liberals aren't affiliated with orthodox evangelical protestants and that they account for a small portion of Christians overall. Do you really need to lie to defend your false faith?

>>19454346
>Do you really need to lie to defend your false faith?
I would tell a million lies if it meant bringing down protestantism and its zionist obsession.

>>19454458
>i would lie if i could bring down something
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>19454346
I'm not a Christian at all, I worship the gods of my Aryan ancestors. But I do go to church sometimes and I have seen quite a few WOMEN preachers in Presbyterian churches that fly rainbow flags and have "immigrants welcome" signs. The Southern Baptists are literally controlled by Jews now in their headquarters. Stop living in denial.

>>19454493
>taking the heretics of protestantism and extending that to the whole denomination
yeah, for sure. We all know they'll be judged accordingly.

>>19454493
What is your argument here? Do I need to repeat myself about different branches, denomination, etc? Just tell me if you're genuinely that stupid or if you're just farming Yous.

Funny how extremely contemporary heretics take only a few passages for their advantage.
The point on judgement is being impartial, but they only use things like Matthew 7, that in context means to not do it wrongly.

>>19454513
OP was asking about Presbyterianism in particular. Try to stay on topic you dolt. I'm sure your hillbilly fire and brimstone preacher walks the righteous path of the Aryan warrior for Christ though.

>>19454577
Huh? Oh so you're just really angry and confused. Ok. I'll pray for you.

>>19454078
>he answered the question clearly
I never said his answer was "unclear", moron. Imagine calling someone else ESL on /lit/ and not understanding a simple sentence.

>>19454156
tldr
You heretics will burn in hell.

>>19454674
Mt 7:5

>>19454666
>>19454674
Dial 8

>>19453835
>Reformed Resurgence
Well what a coincidence this coincides with demon world.

>>19455018
Hello! Schizophrenics unfortunately aren't welcome itt. Thank you in advance for seeing yourself out!

>>19453835
Please don't let catholic larpers know everything they're looking for but can't find in the catholic church can actually be found in Presbyterianism. We don't want them there. Catholicism is great for drawing the larpers and homosexuals away from the true church of Christ.

>>19454674
Your fag loving church instructs you to call me brother you fucking faggot sinner.

>818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

>>19453835
Join an Orthodox church. If you're thoughtful enough to become disillusioned with the Catholic Church you're certainly going to find Presbyterianism disappointing.

>>19455128
Why? Be very specific.

>>19455128
orthodoxy is globohomo central you delusional faggot. I attended one and the homily was on climate change. Your bishops are worse than catholics

>>19455133
I'm not going to be very specific because that will take too much time and effort. All I'll say is that I also left the Catholic Church, spent a lot of time soul searching, trying to find the right church for me, and after a long journey I wound up at a Romanian Orthodox Church. But maybe the journey is necessary. I was just trying to save you some time.

>>19455167
>I won't explain because i am very busy. trust me, why would i lie?

>>19455148
Caring about the state of the earth isn't globohomo. Every good Christian should. Do you really associate all discussions of climate change with corporate liberals? To be indifferent to the destruction of the natural world is to brainwashed by the mercantile right who pretend to be religious for votes but who are only really interested in money and power.

>>19453934
Catholics and Orthodox (as well as other churches affiliated with Orthodox) can interact. The Orthodox can go to the Catholic Church to pray and confess, the same with the Catholics. But a Catholic or Orthodox cannot confess to a Protestant pastor.

Protestant denominations unite the secular and the spiritual, while the classical Churches separate the secular and the spiritual.
In this regard, Protestantism is very close to the dualistic European "paganism". Do not forget that it was born from Bogomilism.

>>19455184
It's because he was converted by a Discord Server. Well adjusted adults aren't convinced by shiny icons and jewels, they just pick their local flavour of Protestantism like normal people.

>>19455133
Orthodoxy is a teaching, not an entourage; there is a teaching about the patristic tradition.
Those. you don't have to wear long beards and these same Sith robes or even build Byzantine temples.
Orthodoxy is united not by a cultural or symbolic code, but by a single teaching.

>>19455243
The main thing in the philosophy of Orthodoxy is the Trinity. This is reflected in thinking as well. Orthodox thinking is threefold. This is similar to Hegel's logic with thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Protestants often think like pagans, they have only a thesis (what is good for us is good) and an antithesis (what is good for others is bad for us). This is very primitive and very dangerous.
By the way, Marx understood this, therefore, after his hatred of Russia (based on what he read from the popular press), and after the failures and horrors of the Paris Commune, in his correspondence with Russian correspondents, he came to the conclusion that the revolution might not start. only proletarians-workers, but also peasants, and the greatest revolutionary potential lies precisely in Russia. As a Hegelian, Marx got acquainted with Orthodox logic (through Russian correspondents), and found the foundations of Hegelianism. In the end, Orthodoxy, like Marxism or Hegelianism, calls for a search for a synthesis, i.e. Justice for all people.

>>19455218
This. I am also a former catholic and I eventually became Presbyterian after considering radical, orthodoxy, Lutheran, etc. But I have children and things like that, so I actually went to church instead of arguing about it online until I found the right argument I "believed" in.

Seriously. If you have/want a family but also want rigorous theology, Presbyterianism is the only serious choice.

>>19455287
What? Not being rude, that's some superficial "orthodoxy has foundations, and prots have a vague notion" stuff i couldn't grasp. Could you delve deeper on it?

>>19455315
Its premised on Cath/Orth "bros" who genuinely believe Protestant theology doesn't exist and isn't insanely deep and complex. They have never even heard of, for instance, the Princeton Theology, and they are unaware the Puritans even wrote things down.

>don't mind us, just your baseline, average Presbyterian school, we're going to read Calvin in the original Latin right after we're done planting the community garden at our church.

Why are Catholics stupider than Prebsyterians but claim that others don't "understand" their theology? Are Catholics just Dunning Kruger retards, bros?

>Redeemer Presbyterian Church grew from 50 people to a total attendance of over 5,000 people each Sunday as of 2008, leading some to call him "the most successful Christian evangelist in the city".[14][17] In 2004, Christianity Today praised Redeemer as "one of Manhattan's most vital congregations".[18]

The church's emphasis on young urban professionals, whom Keller believes exhibit disproportionate influence over the culture and its ideas,[19] has given the church an unusual makeup for a US megachurch. The majority of the congregation is made up of single adults; it is also over forty percent Asian-American, and has many congregants working in the arts and financial services. In his preaching, "he hardly shrinks from difficult Christian truths, [but] he sounds different from many of the shrill evangelical voices in the public sphere."[14]

Hmm very based. Any NYC anons wanna weigh in on this church?

>>19455343
Puritan theology and philosophy are described by Lovecraft. The Orthodox have Dostoevsky, the Puritans have Lovecraft.
Of course, this is mass culture, but it is significant precisely because it is mass culture and speaks to many people. Lovecraft and Dostoevsky and Tolstoy wrote fantasy, they did not describe a real setting, but an imaginary one based on their culture. Without Lovecraft, there is no understanding of America, because he expressed dualism, the same thesis and antithesis, but without synthesis. When they say that Derleth perverted Lovecraft is not true. Derleth retained Lovecraft's philosophy, but made it more comprehensible.
Modern authors such as Kathleen Keener are precisely the revisionists of Lovecraft's work. They introduce Synthesis. Therefore, Lovecraft Country and its author Mat Ruff are irrelevant. They appeal with the same thesis-antithesis concepts, so they are insignificant.

>>19455420
>Lovecraft Country and its author Mat Ruff are irrelevant
Plus they are nigr

>>19455372
Caths are just 2/3 spic which brings down the average.

>>19455499
It says white only, and non Hispanic is specified on the article

Catholic here. Just a reminder Presbyterian """women"""" don't do this

>>19455440
It is not so important.
Look, the modern agenda and politics of the American Fantasy Prize (in fact, the Lovecraft Prize) dictates that blacks should be brought to the forefront (not just minorities, such as Indians, but blacks). But the sum does not change from the rearrangement of the places of the terms. Ruff maintains "thesis and antithesis".
What is the significance of Stephen King, besides the fact that he is a great writer of everyday life, although he is liberal to hell? Stephen King displays Synthesis, which is why it is so popular. He has a correct thesis (good), there is an antithesis (good, which from circumstances has become evil) and there is a synthesis (which is actually good if you understand the thesis and antithesis).
He firmly follows the dialectic of Hegel and Marxism.
When Ramsey Campbell on Twitter showed respect for Stephen King and recognized him as a greater writer than himself, I objected. But now I understand that Ramsey was right.
Although from a purely literary side, I love Campbell more!

Interesting thread. Thinking about joining myself

>>19455148
Dominion and toil over this earth was given to us by God Himself. To thrash it and disregard it is a great sin.
No orthodox has any love for the corporate homosexuals destroying and raping this planet.

>>19455508
hot

>>19455647
>No orthodox has any love for the corporate homosexuals
not even close to true. Why do orthos need to constantly lie about their church

>>19455207
>In this regard, Protestantism is very close to the dualistic European "paganism". Do not forget that it was born from Bogomilism.
This is idiotic. Paganism was not about faith or a relationship with their gods, it was entirely about ritual. Believing in their gods meant nothing to them if you did not do this certain ritual or hold this certain feast. Catholicism is much closer to paganism in this regard, and this is exemplified by people like Mother Theresa who have no relationship with God at all yet continue to wear the robes and go through the motions and rituals of their Church. Meanwhile Protestantism is a spectrum of belief systems moving away from an emphasis on ritual and towards a faith-based relationship with God. And at the most extreme end this is manifested in an entirely personal relationship with God that has no real ritual to it at all.

>>19455123
Ok, brother. You are a heretic and will burn in hell, brother.

>>19455402
>over forty percent Asian-American

>>19453835
The primary thing that is "wrong" with it is that it has become something of an upper-middle-class establishment. You yourself characterized your local PCA church by its having "engineer and lawyer families". There's frankly something off about this situation. It was not the case during the Reformation, but is a more recent development that is out of accord with Scripture.

>Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?

>>19455906
Why is it hard to understand, well-to-do upper middle class people want to go to church with their family and it's one of the only major churches left that isn't completely subverted. Orthodoxy is explicitly ethnic, Catholicism is also ethnic to a lesser extent plus the current Pope is very questionable, and Northern Mainline Protestant churches are largely subverted by feminists, liberals, and homosexuals. Your choices generally are either be that outsider white guy going to the Greek/Italian/Russian/Mexican Orthodox/Catholic Church, go to some gay Mainline Church, or go Evangelical. Most people just want to meet other morally-minded people and provide a moral community for their children.

Probably some children's books geared toward brainwashing them to be Presbyterian for life

>>19455906
Wealthy people have to go to church too, faggot. There are plenty of Presbyterian denominations for other people beside the PCA.

>>19455927
I understand the sociological cause, but the situation is unnatural. I don't think there is any biblical conception of a "church of the wealthy." If anything it's the opposite.
>>19455936
>There are plenty of Presbyterian denominations for other people beside the PCA.
They're pretty much all like this. Some are worse.

>>19455906
>thinks being wealthy is not righteous
you're supposed to not be greedy. there's nothing wrong with wealth itself, especially because it helps you help people.

>>19455956
I assume this church makes substantial efforts regarding the poor of the area then?

>>19455940
>I understand the sociological cause, but the situation is unnatural.
Unnatural in what sense? For most of history the vast majority of people going to church have just been...normal people trying to do what they think is right. If these people wanted to take vows of poverty and devote their entire lives unwaveringly to God they'd become priests, but that's not the case and never has been. Most people don't want to do that and most people never have and never will, they're the laity. That's kind of the point right? If you showed them a priest who's given away all of his wealth in devotion to God and asked them if they think this man is more devoted to God than them they'd agree that he is.

>>19455960
I have literally never come across a church of any denomination anywhere that didn't run all sorts of donation drives and try to get people involved in charitable activities both locally and abroad.

>>19455956
>thinks being wealthy is not righteous
Its not.

>>19455940
>They're pretty much all like this. Some are worse
Sorry Presbyterianism appeals to wealthy, highly educated, moderate to conservative people with families I guess? Maybe we should be more like Catholic retards who can barely strong two sentences together without consulting Catholic Answers dot com.

>>19455960
Uh yes? But feel free to check it out for yourself.

>>19455963
Normal people implies the inclusion of people in poverty. There has never been a historical church which is primarily composed of the wealthy. This is assumed in Scripture as James can openly write to the reader as one being oppressed by the wealthy.
>>19455985
>Sorry Presbyterianism appeals to wealthy, highly educated, moderate to conservative people with families I guess? Maybe we should be more like Catholic retards who can barely strong two sentences together without consulting Catholic Answers dot com.
James 2:1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.
2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.

>>19455940
What is your problem? Rich people should just not be allowed to be Christian? Or they have to segregate themselves from one another? Or go to churches in communities far away from them?

Presbyterianism is an intellectual, rationalistic faith and its going to naturally attract smart people. Its not as if they close their doors to poor people, and in poorer areas, the Presbyterians are poorer. Its literally not the religions fault that it is made for geniuses because it makes sense.

The Torah makes it clear that you don't discriminate against the rich the same as the poor btw. Both directions of bias are unacceptable

>>19456000
Again what are you proposing? Are you telling me rich people can't be Christian? Don't bitch, explain exactly what you have in mind. Because whatever it is isn't Christian

>>19456000
>Normal people implies the inclusion of people in poverty. There has never been a historical church which is primarily composed of the wealthy. This is assumed in Scripture as James can openly write to the reader as one being oppressed by the wealthy.
Normal people weren't trying to be poor though, that wasn't some religious choice for them. If they could have been wealthier they would have been. Post-war America was certainly wealthy by any relative standards in the world at the time and it was >90% Protestant. This doesn't seem much different, these people aren't tremendously wealthy they're just well off.

>>19456005
>>19456010
I stated what I am proposing. You are telling me you are in the church that attracts smart and wealthy people. Scripture tells me that God has chosen the foolish and the poor. That does not mean you cannot be saved, but it shows me there is something strange going on when these people seem to be absent for the most part. I'm not quite sure what kind of solution there is but I think something went off base somewhere. And I do think you are engaging in 'respect of persons' as James puts it.

>>19455975
How so?

>>19456044
Right so you're just poisoning the well and refusing to go any farther with your true thoughts because you know they aren't Christian. Guess what you're already there. This passive aggressive well poisoning is not only sinful as gossip, but jts effeminate and gay. enjoy whatever retard church you go to.

>>19456044
I'll add that I don't think any of the Reformers would have been comfortable with such a situation either. As they were establishmentarians it would not have arisen to begin with. It is possible due to the current denominational structure that exists.

>>19456079
I'm not poisoning the well. I recognize something that is wrong but I can't tell you any way that it can be fixed. I do think you need to consider this based on Scripture says about wealth rather than simply trying to defend your own.

>>19456093
Scripture says you don't discriminate against someone for being rich. Like word for word. So you well poisoning by stopping just short of condemning people seeking christ for being wealthy with "oh gee guys this sure is strange" is totally counter to scripture. Again since you can't make any actual proposition I'm gonna assume its fine. You're just well poisoning. Don't say strange again, and don't quote scripture at me again without considering the verses I shared with you.

>>19456093
>>19456044
There's nothing wrong with upper-middle-class people wanting to go to church and live morally-founded lives especially considering you can easily see the alternative and it is significantly worse.

>>19455742
Ritual means nothing by itself. The ritual is a mnemonic memorization of the foundations of the Faith.
Also, the Russian pagan faith was not paganism in this full sense, because it was a Vedic faith, probably with a threefold thinking: Svarga - the Cold lower world (Gntvkzhiliz) of the devils and sinners - the World of apple trees and eternal summer (Hfk).

>>19456137
>Scripture says you don't discriminate against someone for being rich.
James states that you are not to give preferential treatment to a wealthy person over a poor person, and that if you do you are sinning (James 2:1-10). He assumes his general readership is oppressed by the wealthy (v. 6) and is not writing to defend the wealthy from discrimination. You've completely inverted the meaning of the text to the point that it's laughable and I think it's obvious why you would do so. So don't talk to me about whether or not I can quote scripture.
>>19456141
This does not address what I said at all. I didnt say they could not be Christians or go to church.

>>19453835
Read Christianity and Liberalism. Stick with the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) denominations, mainline Protestant churches (like the PC(USA) for example) are a lost cause and now worship trannies, gay marriage and BLM.

>>19456154
>The ritual is a mnemonic memorization of the foundations of the Faith.
That is a total cope and you know it. Gee guys I can't memorize this faith in any other way besides doing something that looks like pagan worship.

Try an acronym

>>19456183
I wasn't referencing James you nutjob. But please show me you're not a larper by telling me what I was referring to. If you can't I will know I can safely dismiss you.

>>19456183
>This does not address what I said at all. I didnt say they could not be Christians or go to church.
Alright so it's not historically unprecedented and it's not wrong then what's your point? You come off as someone trying to be overly critical of people who are doing the right thing.

>>19456185
I would add any NAPARC church is a safe bet. There are a lot of little denominations but they're all basically the same with differences being about the RPoW

>>19456060
>i get no answer
baseless argument, a classic.

>>19456203
he's a catholic well poisoning asshole trying to stop people from going to church, or, at the very least make them feel bad about doing so. its just run of the mill catholic satanism

>larpers moving back to protestantism
Right in time for Trump's 2024 election, precisely as predicted.

>>19456235
neo calvinism has been a major force in American Christianity for almost 20 years. Just Google it.

>>19456219
Yeah I have a hard time parsing what the point there is other than Jew-tier subversion

>>19456195
There's nothing to show you. I've never stated that the wealthy should be discriminated against.
>>19456203
I'm not going to clarify it again. But I am talking about how these churches are managed on a denominational level and am not faulting the laity.
>>19456219
I am a Reformed Protestant but I am not a worshiper of mammon.
>>19456260
Ah I'm a Catholic and then I'm a Jew for questioning why these churches are absent of poor people, and the "we attract smart people because our faith is made for geniuses" mindset (>>19456005) is true Christian humility. I've said what I wanted to see, it will ge through or it won't.

>>19456260
At least jews derive something from membership in the tribe. Catholics do it for free online and still get asked to put more in the coffer. And they STILL don't get a gf which is the whole point. Peolel generally assume they're weird for being catholic too.

>>19456060
There is a difference between upper middle class and actual wealthy people. Its clear anons Church isn't full of multi-millionaires obsessed with capital, but instead normal Christians with good jobs.
But back to the point. Chasing wealth isn't virtuous therefore being wealthy is not righteous.

>>19456246
Anon, Calvinism period has been a force in America since it's founding. That's a very bad, and very Jewish, thing. But it is a thing. We're just seeing the media move back towards it as an acceptable form of controlled opposition.

>>19456275
Chasing wealth is literally the definition of greed.
Which is literally what i said here >>19455956

>>19456275
There isn't. Modern "upper middle class" would be on the level of nobility or royalty in the ancient world.

>>19456271
Yeah you're a reformed protestant who doesn't know basic parts of the Law. Sure. I bet. You couldn't find that scripture because you're an actual Bible illiterate and you're definitely a catholic for that reason. So now you're a liar too. Never met an evangelical who would stumble at the challenge I presented you

>>19456282
>very Jewish, thing
anti semitism is grounds for excommunication in catholicism you larping shit.

Luke 1:53 He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.

Luke 6:24 But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation.

James 1:9-10 9 Let the brother of low degree rejoice in that he is exalted: but the rich, in that he is made low: because as the flower of the grass he shall pass away.

James 5:1 Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you.

>>19456295
oh anon, now you're just the fox and the grapes. you'll get a job one day.

>>19456291
Then if they have the wealth they should donate it all. Why hold onto it if not greed?

>>19456305
Yawn.

>>19456317
Because the Bible says its theirs. All but one tenth is the rightful possession of whomever earns it.

>>19456271
>I'm not going to clarify it again. But I am talking about how these churches are managed on a denominational level and am not faulting the laity.
You never clarified anything in the first place, you stopped responding to me here lol >>19456016
You admit that it's not wrong (obviously) and you didn't respond when I brought up that it's not really unprecedented either. So again, what's your point? Or point to where you talked about some 3rd possibility here, because I don't see it.

>>19456271
>Ah I'm a Catholic and then I'm a Jew for questioning why these churches are absent of poor people, and the "we attract smart people because our faith is made for geniuses" mindset (>>19456005) is true Christian humility. I've said what I wanted to see, it will ge through or it won't.
Everyone responding to you isn't the same person faggot. I called you Jew-tier because you're being critical of these people who are doing the right thing with no real point. So if you have no real point, and you're critical that they're doing the right thing, the logical conclusion is that you want them to do something else (ie the wrong thing).

>>19456344
And the Bible also says they have their reward (Hell).

>>19456353
If you cannot see the problem then your sense of faith is damaged by money.

>>19456365
If you can't explain what the problem is with these people then you're clearly a member of a different religion trying to subvert. You've already said their is nothing immoral about them, so if this is your answer I'll assume you're admitting you had nothing really to say in the first place.

>>19456312
I am not Catholic, nor did I ever claim that I was.

>>19456379
I already responded to you and said I was talking about the way the denominations are managed. Something about it leads to poor people being underrepresented in an ahistorical fashion that is also out of accord with what scripture states about the poor. I noted that the Reformers were establishmentarians, and that an established church would prevent this from ever happening. It was not an issue in the Reformation era and Presbyterianism was not the "faith of intellectuals" as the other anon titled it. It's not something inherent to the doctrine. I don't know specifically what it is or how it can be fixed, but it's something that is wrong, and I've explained why it's wrong. I don't have all the answers so I'm not going to pretend I do.

>>19456357
>people following God's law deserve hell
Nope you're a Satanist and a retard. The law is clear about how people are to handle their money and as to what is theirs and what is God's

I am not christian but you are the kind of guy that would abandon primitive christianity because you would not want to get persecuted by the romans. At the end you dont trully believe in your religion, just wanna find some religion institution that panders to your believes. Fuck christianity and protestant nigger kikes for accelarating the fall of the west

>>19456420
Take it up with Christ.
Luke 6:23-24 Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven ... But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation.

>>19456436
No part of the Bible gets ignored more than all of the condemnation of rich people lol

>>19456406
You didn't note any of this to me you retard, everyone responding to you is not the same person. I literally pointed out to you the conversation we were having where you stopped responding to me. It's not something that is wrong, please refer to >>19455927 again if you don't understand what is going on. The only way you could possibly think it is bad that a certain group of people in search of a moral foundation are choosing this church is if you are interested in it having less followers.

>>19456447
There have been multiple anons responding to me. I can't tell which one is which necessarily and I don't particularly care. So do please stop complaining about it.
>It's not something that is wrong, please refer to >>19455927 again if you don't understand what is going on.
That doesn't vindicate anything. "Hath not God chosen the poor of this world" Where might they be I wonder.

>>19456446
Christianity is like a cancer: first the disease starts with a jewish death cult (primitive christianity). Then the tumors start spreading everywhere in the body (catholics). Then the tumors start destroying everything inside the body and finally kills it (protestants).

>>19456438
Your proof texting is meaningless unless you can square that quote with the Torah which gives guidance on how to use riches. Your inability to do so is your problem not mine, however, your use of Scripture to turn people away FROM Christ belies your true intention.

>>19456458
It vindicates anything and you have no argument. Do you think these churches do no charitable work? You think they donate nothing? All you're seeking to accomplish is shaming lay people for trying to live moral lives (because they're not doing it at your church).

>>19456471
And the must funny part is that OP see the world burning around him, see what caused it and think: hum, maybe they are right after all because they have a big familly and read latim

So wait, Presbyterianism is for hip rich people with high IQ? Wtf I unironically want to be Presbyterian now... never knew that stereotype but legit makes it seem very appealing to me.

>>19456491
You seem like an actual broken person. I'll pray for you in church. Unfortunately your weird rage toward successful people will not make your life any better. Perhaps see what scripture says about covetousness.

>>19456480
2 Cor. 9:6 But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully.

Luke 12:33 Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth.

>>19456488
Where are the poor that God has chosen to be rich in faith?

>>19456491
They have engineers and lawyers in their church! Those are the kinds of people I want to be around.

>>19456500
>Perhaps see what scripture says about covetousness.

>>19456503
Sorry you still haven't harmonized that with the Torah provisions for private property protections and that 90 percent of all wealth earned is rightfully that person's. Again, your issue not mine. Christ says not one iota of the law is undone, and this is a big feature of it.

>>19456511
It is yours indeed. I have never disputed that. You can store it up all you want, and it will be your reward when you die. That is the teaching of Christ.

>>19456508
Not him or OP, but yes. It really does seem like a great environment. I'm gonna look into it

>>19456503
>Where are the poor that God has chosen to be rich in faith?
In Appalachia, part of literally the same exact church you bumbling retard.

>>19456525
I'd like proof of this mythical Presbyterian church full of poor Appalachian people.

>>19456500
I am just the person that read history and understood what happened to this world. Pray that when the world ends people forget about your bullshit religion and create a dignified religion, not a mongrelized one invented from an already decadent delusion

>>19456518
The teaching of Christ is that the law is eternal and just. Me keeping 90 percent is not only acceptable, it is the law of God and it is just and pleasing to him. Period. You failed to harmonize and thus are a marcionite heretic

>>19456508
Not the old peoples abandoned delusion. Wheres le hecking trad white lawyerinos teaching latin?

>>19456538
The length you will go to to defend the riches that scripture condemns. It is amazing.

James 5:1 Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you.
2 Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten.
3 Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days.

>>19456533
What the fuck are you talking about, Presbyterian is the largest denomination in West Virginia. Appalachia is all Ulster Scots, they've been Presbyterian since they came over 300 years ago.

>>19456523
If you wanna larp just convert tho orthodoxy and post seraphim rose quotes from maximum based points

Mt. 6:30-34 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

This is what I think about when I direct by six figure 401(k) investments.

>>19456525
The entire point of OP was that Presbyterians are historically something for poor rural whites and that for some reason those same denominations are making headway among wealthier urban professionals.

>>19456615
Presbyterians have had the reputation of being the "frozen chosen" for quite some time, and the association of them with wealthier people is not new at all.

>>19456619
I think that refers to the fact that they're more traditional and unwilling to liberalize like so many other Protestant denominations, aka they're remaining moral.

>>19456619
Episcopalians were wealthiest, the Presbyterian, then Methodist, then Lutheran. Power gap, Catholic toilet cleaners.

Episcopal Church was associated with trust funds whereas Presbyterians are associated with the professional class of doctors, lawyers, etc. People who make their money by being intelligent and industrious. You know, like Christ wants.

>>19456551
I don't really think you understand Christianity. At all. You have utterly failed to reconcile your position with the word of God at any point here. Without reference to you vaguely related prooftexts, please explain carefully how the Torah's clear teaching on private property somehow no longer applies or was wrong from inception. I'm not seeing you even acknowledge what I've referenced. God was very clear about wealth. You keep 90 percent and the rest belongs to God. You can give more, but it is not unjust to do otherwise. There are even more nuances to limits to charity, but I won't cast pearls before swine. You can't even grasp the big points let alone nuances of Torah. Sad!

>>19456572
You mean maximum schizo points

>>19456547
This kinda was a weird time to use soijak. You're not making a bunch of lawyers with big families learning ancient languages seem less cool.

Strange, just had a long conversation with some Presbyterian missionaries today and have been thinking deeply about it since, then check /lit/ and this thread appears.

>>19456905
Its called the Holy Spirit. Congrats on probably being elect btw.

>>19456905
Fuck off with your propaganda. If you aren't a Catholic you might as we not be Christian. You're going to hell regardless, so enjoy faggot piece of shit.

>>19457119
Uh oh, catholic boi didn't dilate today, getting cranky

>>19453835
John Calvin did nothing wrong

but he wasn't one of the elect

>>19456913
>>19456913
Does modern Calvinist theology try to avoid or nuance the free will / determinism issue at all or is it still a central tenet that the whole thing is predestined?

I keep encountering Calvinist theologians who seem interesting like Dooyeweerd (I wish /lit/ would make Dooyeweerd into a thing for a while) and Kuyper, but some part of me says how right can they be if they see nothing wrong with the predestination thing? I understand why predestination and election work emotionally, but as theology they seem like dead ends.

>>19457338
Why don't you take that issue up with the Bible instead of Calvinists? And yes, 5-point Calvinism is still the definition of Calvinism. Exactly how many times does the Bible discuss free will and how much God values it in comparison to predestination and election? Give me your approximate guess.

>>19457360
No need to get combative and smug sounding like the /lit/ Catholics do, I'm not here to debate the issue. I'm just asking if there are any streams within Calvinism that have sensed how alienating it is to some people like myself and done anything to soften it. But it seems like the answer is probably no.

>>19457379
The answer would be liberal Presbyterians like the PCUSA or the entire history of New England Reformed groups that liberalized/splintered off from orthodox Calvinism. Things like Universalists and Congregationalists. They don't have very interesting theology because it's exactly what you're saying: "Calvinism is right but it makes us feel bad so..."

I mean there's also obviously everything that extends out from Arminianism, so Anglicanism after they stopped being Reformed and Methodists and most Evangelicals. None of the things I've listed are Calvinist because by definition that isn't what Calvinism is. Softening it leads to a different theology altogether; there really isn't a middle ground here.

The issue really is where you derive your disdain for predestination. It can't be from the Bible, which endorses it. Putting that aside, the common sense derivative of an all knowing eternal God is obviously predestination. I take issue more with the very peculiar constructs and elaborate rules open theism sets up to justify the omniscient/omnipotent God where free will coexists.

>>19457379
I think 4-point Reformed Baptists would be the most you can push Calvinism before it ceases to be Calvinism. I forget which point they drop.

>>19454346
>We all know mainline liberals aren't affiliated with orthodox evangelical protestants
Didn't the head of the Southern Baptists backstab Trump for Biden? Which Protestant groups aren't cucked exactly, other than extreme fringe Churches that make up 0.01% of their numbers like Steven Andersons IFB church

>>19457338
>see nothing wrong with the predestination thing? I understand why predestination and election work emotionally, but as theology they seem like dead ends.
i genuinely don't understand what you mean. calvinism isn't a remotely emotional theology. it is literally based off the bible and what it says, as well as looking the consequences of God existing squarely in the face. the entire theology resists human emotion and natural tendencies with everything it has. i don't know what you mean by dead ends, but people aren't calvinists because it feels good. it's because it's true.

100+ replies and no one has pointed out that Presbyterians ORDAIN FEMALE PASTORS AND ELDERS

PRESBYTERIANS ORDAIN FEMALE PASTORS AND ELDERS

That is all you need to know.

>>19457461
the liberal mainline presbyterian denomination does. the one that is almost dead. the many conservative denominations that have nothing to do with it don't. maybe no one mentioned this because they have a basic grasp of the topic at hand. catholic idiots like you don't even have the first clue about real christianity, but when confronted with your ignorance, as right now, you won't repent. you'll just double down. but that's bizarre given the egg on your face is from you simply not knowing things that every other person in the thread knew.

>>19457473
Nonsense and hyperbole lol. The mainline presbyterian denomination is 10x larger than every other one. The small conservative splinters you mentioned barely boast more than a few thousand members each. All the presbyterian colleges, papers, newsletters etc. are associated with the mainlaine presbyterian denomination in the US. Cope and seethe

>>19457460
Christian Theology falls apart without an affirmation of free will. If free will doesn't exist then all Calvinist theology amounts to the same thing as the rules for D&D. The main problem with Calvinist theology is it's inherently modernist and easily falls into binary thinking. Faith OR Works. God OR Man. Predestination OR Arbitrariness. The synthetic principle that characterized early Christian thinking is completely lost because Calvin was essentially an autist who wanted to completely systematize the Christian faith and leave no room for mystery.

Ultimately the fact is even though Calvin relied heavily on Augustine even Augustine refutes Calvin (and Calvin admitted this saying even Augustine didn't really understand the scriptures like Calvin did which is a sign of his unbridled hubris), very few of the other early Christian theologians agree with Calvin so it's an entirely novel theology.

>>19457488
this post doesn't refute what i said. you seem to have forgotten what the conversation was about. don't reply to me again if you're going to communicate in stale 4chan memes.

>>19455358
are these catholics? I don't understand the joke

>>19456005
>Presbyterianism is an intellectual, rationalistic faith
(you)

>>19457490
none of this is remotely interesting or deep thought, and the assertion that early christian theology was remotely uniform is hilarious. aside from that, this is just arbitrary bald assertion that doesn't critique or refute anything. ironically, the entire post is guilty of the autistic binary thinking you're criticizing calvin for. and don't even get me started on conflating calvin with calvinism.

you're not as great of a thinker as you think you are. that's why you're having issues. i recommend some humility.

>>19457495
I pointed out that you were wrong in your assessment of a "dying liberal mainline presbyterian denomination". Everything else you had to say was just abstract seething about catholics. The PCUSA is THE Presbyterian church in the United States, boasting 8000 congregations and nearly 1.5 million active members. The "many conservative denominations" are an extreme minority with little to no institutional recognition, not representative of Presbyterianism by and large. The vast, overwhelming majority of Presbyterians affirm LGBT rights and the ordination of women. That is the face of Presbyterianism as it exists, sorry to say

>>19457513
so you're admitting that you're wrong about what you came into the thread to say? you said presbyterians ordain female pastors, but this entire thread has not been about the pcusa. it's been primarily about the pca, which does not. the only thing the two have in common is the word presbyterian, so you're literally just off topic.

>>19455927
>that outsider white guy going to the Greek/Italian/Russian/Mexican Orthodox/Catholic Church
This is only true for Orthodox Churches. You're forgetting that there are Irish Catholics, British Catholics, German Catholics, French Catholics, Polish Catholics, etc etc, and that in the west you're going to have a ton of immigrant stock that is both white and Catholic. I've never felt like a "white outsider" at an "ethnic" Catholic church.

>>19457513
>The PCUSA is THE Presbyterian church in the United States
No, the PCA is THE Presbyterian church in the United states. The PCA is the second largest Presbyterian church body.

>>19457513
>thread is about the pca
>catholic comes in and insists its about the pcusa
>anon says no one talked about the pca
>catholic keeps talking about the pcusa and insists that's what the thread's about
This is gaslighting in strictest sense of the word, and it's a characteristic of sociopaths. Catholics are sociopaths.

>>19457533
They have only a fifth of the number of active members as does the PCUSA, and a fifth of the number of congregations. They're not insignificant, but they're far from the face of Presbyterianism in the United States

>>19457420
Interesting, thanks for this. Reading about the Arminianism debate has made me understand that people who do what I was wondering about above, break from strict predestination within Calvinism, have plenty of other denominations to go to because of the centuries of disputes. All the schisms are already done so the paths are clear and well-trod enough for any doubters I suppose. I may try to read Dooyeweerd on predestination though apparently he doesn't touch on it systematically. Apparently Kuyper was Calvinist party line about it.

>It can't be from the Bible, which endorses it
I understand it's de rigueur to speak categorically like this in theological controversies (I've watched enough filioque and sola scriptura fights from the sidelines), but isn't the persistence of disputes and schisms proof enough that the Biblical stance on it is contentious? That's a different claim from what the correct stance ultimately is, or whether the stance is clearly articulated in the Bible, since even if the latter is true, you would have to add an additional clause to explain why people empirically have contended and do disagree about it.

I don't mind confidence when someone is asserting their dogmatic stance is correct but I always find it off-putting when they seem to their confidence has anything to do with the stance's correctness itself. You are presumably confident because you think you're right, but that doesn't preclude many others or even the majority from being wrong, and if you are claiming the majority is indeed wrong about something apparently self-evidently, obviously true, then you do have to acknowledge that apparent paradox.

For my part I favor a docta ignorantia, coincidentia oppositorum approach to Christianity, including scripture, accepting that some things are mysterious (in the original sense) and deprecating logic when it comes to describing God's essence or behavior (our logically purified concepts of God may help us approach but are not identical with God). Our inability to reconcile God's divine knowledge with our apparent freedom to choose is then a limitation of our concepts, hence mysticism etc. I lean instinctively toward theologians who assume that God's world is very mysterious and bigger than our limited view on it. Just describing my instincts here, not saying I could hold my own in a scripture fight over it. I stay away from those threads regardless of denomination.

>>19457460
I mean that the notion of election was very psychologically and emotionally moving during the Reformation. It's usually noted in histories of the period I've read as one of the reasons Calvinism took off.

Like I said to the above guy, I understand if you think it's true, and that you're confident in it, but there is still room to envision that some random illiterate noblewoman with dubious theological knowledge was primarily moved by the way election was described to her within a Calvinist framework when she converted.

>>19457546
The PCA has 400K members and total NAPARC membership is about 600K. That's half the size of the PCUSA, but the PCUSA has an average age membership of almost 70 and loses 40,000 members a year while the PCA grows. Then there's also all Reformed Baptists and Calvinist Evangelicals in denominations like the SBC.

No one cares what you think the "face" of Presbyterianism is. That's a fucking red herring designed to derail discussion in this thread, which was never about the PCUSA. What the PCUSA says or does has absolutely zero bearing on anything being discussed here.

>>19457553
>I don't mind confidence when someone is asserting their dogmatic stance is correct but I always find it off-putting when they seem to their confidence has anything to do with the stance's correctness itself. You are presumably confident because you think you're right, but that doesn't preclude many others or even the majority from being wrong, and if you are claiming the majority is indeed wrong about something apparently self-evidently, obviously true, then you do have to acknowledge that apparent paradox.
I don't think that opposition to predestination, historically, ever came from anything biblical though. It came from the insertion of pagan philosophy into Christianity. Catholics believe in free will because of Aristotle, not Paul. That's the major contention I have with the refusal to accept predestination.

>>19453835
Do what makes you happy, theres no god.

>>19457498
that is literally a presbyterian school what don't you get

>>19457511
>and the assertion that early christian theology was remotely uniform is hilarious
I never made this assertion unless you're mistaking my observation that Calvins theology represents a marked shift from all Christian theology before him as all Christian theology before him being a monolith which obviously does not logically follow. You can recognize theological diversity in the early Church AND also recognize that Calvins theology is novel and has no root in the early Church, in fact many of Calvins positions were explicitly rejected or refuted and represent reprisals of earlier heresies like Nestorianism.

>ironically, the entire post is guilty of the autistic binary thinking you're criticizing calvin for. and don't even get me started on conflating calvin with calvinism.
I've read more on Calvinism than you have. I have Bavincks 4 volume reformed dogmatics, Hodges 3 volume Systematic Theology, Grudems Systematic Theology, Calvins Institutes as well as many other books on reformed positions by Michael Horton and James White. Addressing Calvin as the progenitor of Calvinism is appropritate, but yes I am aware that Calvinism has changed over time as many of it's tenets have become widely recognized as untenable. In practice this generally means Calvinist theology is an elaborate motte and bailey game where certain things will be asserted then when refuted will be "clarified" back to a position that is only really semantically different to the Catholic position.

>>19457638
oh shit my mistake, i was trying to engage with you seriously but you've revealed that you're an arrogant piece of shit human. you typed a lot to say your hot opinions with zero support, and if you're just going to default to basic bitch catholic answers stock opinion anyway, what's the point? i mean that very seriously. imagine reading all that you claimed to read, only to have such a 2 dimensional, resentful opinion on the topic.

don't reply again.

>>19457638
>Calvins theology is novel and has no root in the early Church
why does this matter?

>Calvins positions were explicitly rejected or refuted and represent reprisals of earlier heresies like Nestorianism
this is wildly untrue and gives me dunning kruger vibes. hypothetically why does this matter?

>Calvinism has changed over time as many of it's tenets have become widely recognized as untenable
imputing agency to a theology is pretty retarded, but neither is such a thing unique to calvinism

>certain things will be asserted then when refuted will be "clarified" back to a position that is only really semantically different to the Catholic position
this is where you get really stupid. but if calvinism is a novel system but the same as catholicism, does that mean catholicism is novel too? if not i would love to know how those things aren't mutually exclusive lol

>>19457705
>why does this matter?
Because it clearly cannot be the true understanding of the Christian faith if it contradicts the prior 1500 years of Christian thinking.

>hypothetically why does this matter?
See above. Remember Christianity is a historical faith, it's passed down by witnesses who saw the risen Christ. Everything hinges on historical fact. If Christ did not rise then our faith is in vain so we rely on the witnesses, their testimony and the faith they passed down.

>imputing agency to a theology is pretty retarded
I didn't? Calvinism as a theology has changed precisely because it's practitioners, the Calvinists, have recognized flaws in Calvins original positions and moderated or outright changed them as necessary.

>but neither is such a thing unique to calvinism
It's axiomatic that there must be a correct theology that has been passed down from the time of the apostles and can still be known today. I'm not putting my hat in the ring to defend or argue for which one that is, my only argument here is that it's clearly NOT Calvinism both for the fact it's historically disconnected from the early Church and it has positions that are either implicitly or outright heretical as defined by the early Church of the first seven ecumenical councils.

>this is where you get really stupid. but if calvinism is a novel system but the same as catholicism, does that mean catholicism is novel too?
Again you don't seem like you want to read what I said or be charitable, instead preferring to strawman me. Calvinism as defined by Calvin was a novel system but has been moderated back to be closer to Catholicism because Calvins positions are too hard to defend. Remember there is a difference between what Calvinists will claim to be the case and how they'll define what that position is when pressed. "Sola Fide" ends up being barely distinguishable from the Catholic position when all the "clarifications" are made to patch up the obvious holes in the position.

>>19457738
yeah ok i was just curious but you're not worth talking to. you're just a catholic/orthodox partisan trying to shit up the thread. nothing you've said is worth responding to. anyone who asserts that catholicism is "historic" in any way as it exists today is a cult victim.

>>19453912
I've been lurking on puritanboard. What are some others? Not OP btw.

>>19457769
"Do you wish to know," says St. Augustine, "which is the true Church of Christ? Count those priests who, in a regular succession have succeeded St. Peter., who is the Rock, against which the gates of hell will not prevail" (St. Aug. in Ps. contra part Donat.): and the holy Doctor alleges as one of the reasons which detain him in the Catholic Church, the succession of Bishops to the present time in the See of St. Peter" (Epis. fund, c. 4, n. 5); for in truth the uninterrupted succession from the Apostles and disciples is characteristic of the Catholic Church and of no other.

It was the will of the Almighty that the Church in which the true faith was preserved should be one, that all the faithful might profess the one faith, but the devil, St. Cyprian says (de Unitate Ecclesie), invented heresies to destroy faith, and divide unity. The enemy has caused mankind to establish many different churches, so that each, following the faith of his own particular one, in opposition to that of others, the true faith might be confused, and as many false faiths formed as there are different churches, or rather different individuals. This is especially the case in England, where we see as many religions as families, and even families themselves divided in faith, each individual following his own. St. Cyprian, then, justly says that God has disposed that the true faith should be preserved in the Roman Church alone, so that there being but one Church there should be but one faith and one doctrine for all the faithful. St. Optatus Milevitanus, writing to Parmenianus, says, also: "You cannot be ignorant that the Episcopal Chair of St. Peter was first placed in the city of Rome, in which one chair unity is observed by all" (St. Opt. l. 2, cont. Parmen.)

Was Augustine wrong? Or was Calvin?

>>19457819
dude let it go, i don't care about your entire line of argumentation because i think your first principles are completely worthless. you have a real garbage in - garbage out problem on your hands (with your brain). and i'm not interested in debating your first principles because they're predicated on specious bullshit and historical inaccuracies. ultimately, most people in general aren't convinced by your autism, and that's why your false religion is on its last leg while mine is not, and that's why i can comfortably just tell you to touch grass instead of go through the unpleasant process of debating you.

>>19457819
They're both wrong because there is no church government above that of the local congregation. The apostles were a special group who do not have successors. The replacement of Judas does not indicate any perpetual succession or an expansion of the number of apostles or the binding of apostles to specific geographical areas to hold domain or any of the other concepts of the bishopric.

>>19455112
Why would you want anyone to be drawn from the (alledged) true church of Christ/ Sounds like you're hurt that protestants aren't as respected here.

>>19459429
Because as the thread has shown, he is a worshiper of mammon who is a Presbyterian because it allows him access to better social circles and educational opportunities for his children.

>>19454036
MEDS.
NOW.

>>19453835
>the local PCA church is filled with engineer and lawyer families with 5 to 8 kids each
Your local synagogue has even more engineers and lawyers with even more children.

Just pointing out the giyur option for you.

>>19456872
>please explain carefully how the Torah's clear teaching on private property somehow no longer applies or was wrong from inception.
It's quite simple to understand. You indeed only have minimal obligations and have the right to keep the majority of your money should you so choose. But that is not the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law is this
>2 Cor. 9:6 But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully.
>7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.
God desires you to give freely. The law does not place a high burden upon you because if your heart were with God, you would give freely. And to those that do not, it shows the true desire of their heart.
>Mt. 6:19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
>20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
>21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
Where is your treasure? If your money is not your treasure why do you covet it? You have no ability to deal with Scripture's condemnation of riches because you do not understand this teaching.

>>19453835
Brother,
Please examine how you framed your feelings towards the PCA. You see the decline of faithful and successful Catholic Laity and see the greener grass on the side of Presbyterianism. Yes, Latin and procreation and wealthy professionalism are all desired... But must you abandon your mother Church to attain it? Jumping theology off the back of sociological trends might seem justifiable to you... Even as or if you are not aware of it. But I think that young persons like yourself abandoning the Roman Church for a Protestant one with better metrics is a sad sight. How else will the Roman Church reverse this decline? Or is the church of the Eucharist really not meant for Americans?

not white btw

>>19454191
>we made up a bunch of concepts that prove you are wrong
Also, funny how proddies always conveniently ignore the early schismatic churches and their whole theology just to circlejerk their cope ideas.

>>19459668
>>19459560
>>19459550
>>19459443
>>19459439
Just pointing out that only wokescolds and catholics are on 4chan on Thanksgiving. If anyone doubts they're not all incels who see 4chan as their family.

And no im not a presbyterian

>>19459834
>everybody on 4chan is amerimutt

>>19459834
What a damning observation lmao. Op was right

>>19459925
What should people be doing this early on thanksgiving? It's not like you're eating dinner at this time of day, which is the whole celebration of the holiday. And it's not a religious holiday either.

>>19459939
>why yes I don't have children or family how could you tell?
Why exactly is it that catholicism attracts people like you? Potential school shooters, that is. I think its because it requires a certain combination of factors. The catholic view of history requires a willful ignorance of any current scholarship on Christian origins. But it also requires autistic consumption of church propaganda. So the only person who would buy into it are people who think they're smarter than people with phds and yet also voraciously consume deliberately distorted propaganda. Its dunning kruger, but its also a weird persecution complex. Its wanting to be on a team, but its also wanting to feel superior at any cost.

That combined with the state of the Church being essentially a nursing home on Sundays means that anyone even slightly well adjusted will run, while schizoid narcissists find a perfect home.

>>19459982
lol. I'm not who you think I am.

>>19460013
>defends catholics
>I'm not even catholic lol
Oh you're that poster. No I know exactly who and what you are. You're the most pathetic of them all. Not surprised you're on here today.

>>19460130
No I'm not whoever that is, either. I enjoyed the takedowns in this thread of those claiming that it was discussing the PC(USA) when it wasn't. I'm just not as hardline "you must spend every waking moment with your immediate family on a holiday.

>>19453835
Is Wheaton a good school? Whats it like?

>>19459834
Not an argument.

>>19460332
>not just going to Dallas Theological

>>19459982
This is another thing about Presbyterianism. You will be excluded if you are not married with children, despite scripture encouraging celibacy.

>>19454493
>I worship the gods of my Aryan ancestors.
Translation: I’m a rootless LARPer who pretends to and unknowningly worships a bunch of demons who abducted women, raped them (straight out of Genesis 6 lol) and engaged in bestiality and homosexuality constantly

>>19460424
Actually I shouldn't single out Presbyterianism here. This is a shortcoming of (almost?) all Protestants denominations.

>>19460436
110 IQ take.

>>19460437
That was meant for >>19460428

>>19460442
I’ll take that estimate

>>19460424
>>19460436
(cont.) And I do understand why they behave this way, due to a need to condemn monasticism. But it is still an overreaction and not in accord with scripture.

>>19460452
The pagan myths can't be thought of so simply as demons who raped women (disclaimer: I'm in no way a pagan). Ever heard of the Greek Miracle? All through the near east their gods are animal headed beings that demand sacrifice, or they're obilesks and monoliths, things very cruel, inhuman, remote but immensly powerful. And then there's the Greek gods, and Greek civilization. The Greek gods looked like people, and they were very beautiful, they had morals of a sort, they hated human sacrifice, they hated broken oaths. Sometimes the term the greek miracle is used to describe this revolution in the world of antiquety, which gave birth to the begginings of western civilization and thought. The later Greeks took these ideas further, going so far as to, apparently, change the telling of those myths that show the gods in an unfavourable light. As for a norse pantheon there's elements of this too, Balder represents it the best, I think.

>>19453934
in what way do they blaspheme the holy spirit

Could some explain to me Presbyterianism?

I'm trying my best to find my faith, but the Roman Catholic church disgusts me and I hate them with every fiber of my being. What are the most striking differences between Presbyterian practice and that of Catholic churches?

The local Presbyterian church has an LGBTQ flag outside its doors. Are y'all cool with gays and poor people?

>>19460584
There are multiple Presbyterian denominations. The majority are conservative and do not support LGBT. Use this to find one near you that is not heretical.
https://www.naparc.org/directories-2/

>>19453835
>Evangelical Presbyterianism is attractive to me because it has a strong history in America, and its current adherents are more educated, wealthier, and more procreative than most Americans and other evangelicals.
Imagine basing your choice of church on materialist secular things like this, instead of whether or not Jesus Christ founded it. Pretty cringe desu.

>>19455148
noooo the priest cant talk about things i dont wanna hear noooooo

>>19460424
Scripture says some people should be celibate, but it also has many more admonitions to be fruitful and multiply a lot. It also says that pastors and deacons should be married AS A REQUIREMENT so don't forget that if you're going by scripture. Silly catholics with their dishonest arguments. Also you're only harping on that point because catholics don't have kids anymore. They used to be known for it, and you aren't condemning them. But that's because you're just looking for something, anything to criticize.

>>19460584
Don't go to the pcusa which is liberal. As another anon said look at NAPARC churches or PCA in particular. Or if you are liberal I guess go to pcusa lol. Anyway, Pastor Matt Everhard on YouTube has a good channel with a lot of strong info on Reformed theology and teaching. If you're just a little curious I recommend that.

Calvinism/Reformed/Presbyterianism is essentially a very rationalistic and intellectual take in Christianity that engages with scholarship on textual criticism and Christian history without the biases of many other denominations and religions. We are cessationist in terms of miracles. On the other hand, this is tempered by a strong belief in biblical inerrancy. So there's a trade off there. The more liberal denominations tend to compromise on that point, while others more conservative tend to ignore scholarship or only consider certain perspectives. As the op said, this leads to a strong focus on academia, publishing, etc.

Another pastor to look into is Tim Keller for further info about the theology and some contemporary application.

>>19460700
imagine being catholic and complaining about other churches being too materialistic. you have no issue with aesthetician fags until it stops working in your favor.

any good books that will change my view that monergism is gay cringe?

>>19460742
What are you even talking about? The point is that people choosing a church based upon the congregants being "educated, wealthier, and more procreative" is a classic example of American materialism. The earliest Christians did not join the church because of how educated the people within it were, but because Jesus Christ had created it. To do anything less than following in their footsteps is literal cringe, and it makes church nothing more than an arbitrary social group.

>>19460764
gonna need more specifics

>>19460769
that has nothing to do with my point. silly esl catholic, unable to follow arguments.

>>19460781
You didn't even have a point, you are just refusing to see mine. Picking a church like a cafeteria based upon materialist qualifiers of the congregants shows that Protestants are divorced from Church history.

>>19460804
With the centuries of doctrinal innovation and flaunting of tradition with papal supremacy, filioque, hoaxes like the donation of Constantine, literal idol worship by people like Pope Francis and the Pachamama idols, the homosexual infestation of the priesthood, frequent innovation in liturgy, etc. no one can become a Catholic and feel secure in their salvation. You have no history, only propaganda which makes that assertion but that everyone outside of your cult disagrees with.

>>19460721
>Scripture says some people should be celibate, but it also has many more admonitions to be fruitful and multiply a lot.
This is not quite what the text says. I will quote it for convenience:

1 Cor. 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
...
6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

Paul states that it is preferable for a person to remain celibate but that if they cannot do so they have permission to marry in order to avoid the temptation of fornication. The emphasis is not quite what you are implying it is. Even recognizing celibacy merely as a gift, I have seen little evidence of this being recognized in practice within Reformed circles.

>It also says that pastors and deacons should be married AS A REQUIREMENT so don't forget that if you're going by scripture.
Paul himself is unmarried and I'm not sure there is warrant to interpet the requirements of elders to specifically exclude hte apostles. But an elder certainly may get married if he wishes to. I am not a Catholic so I will ignore the rest of your nonsense accusing me of such.

>>19460823
Nice gish gallop.
>With the centuries of doctrinal innovation and flaunting of tradition
As you are a member of a church whose whole doctrine is a man-made innovation completely divorced from the ancient tradition of the church, I don't think you have a leg to stand on.
>filioque
Both Eastern and Western fathers, like Maximus the Confessor, agreed that there is an orthodox way to profess the filioque.
>hoaxes like the donation of Constantine
Which are not the basis of the papal doctrines, and whose fact of forgery was revealed BY Catholics.
>literal idol worship by people like Pope Francis and the Pachamama idols
Your opinion on the personality or morals of the bishop of Rome does not change whether or not the church was created by Jesus Christ.
>the homosexual infestation of the priesthood,
There is an equal, if not higher, rate of abuse of minors by the clergy in Protestant churches, and public schools. The "crisis" is overblown by the media.
>frequent innovation in liturgy
Why should this matter to you when your entire liturgy is a man-made innovation not based on ANY ancient tradition, whereas the New Order of the mass is?
>no one can become a Catholic and feel secure in their salvation.
You have it quite opposite, actually. The real danger is that the heretical false churches, like the one you are a part of, fool people like you into thinking your salvation is secure, when Paul tells us to work out our salvation with "fear and trembling". Satan is the author of division and rivalries, and so he is the creator of the Protestant churches.
>You have no history, only propaganda which makes that assertion but that everyone outside of your cult disagrees with.
Unlike you, I can read the early church Fathers and church histories and see that they agreed with the same things I believe. You don't have the same luxury, so you have to cope and seethe when you find all of the fathers talking about baptismal regeneration, real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the unity of the church being built upon the chair of St. Peter, etc.

>>19456141
>There's nothing wrong with upper-middle-class people wanting to go to church and live morally-founded lives
Is that really all Jesus was calling his followers to do? Just be decent pleasant church going bourgs?

>>19460880
Now quote the passages throughout the Bible that say you should have lots of children. then harmonkize them for me

>>19460902
The demand is the same as before. When you asked it of me previously and I explained how it is harmonized (>>19459550) you did not respond so I am not sure if I should bother now.

>>19460910
You're using scripture as a weapon to attack faithful Christians. If you actually cared about anything besides arguing for the hell of it, yoid acknowledge its a nuanced issue with room for various interpretations. You also wouldn't hide from verses that contradict your point. You did neither and therefore its not in good faith. You're wrong to attack Christians having children when God calls that a blessing. Period. Scripture doesn't give guidance for how prevalent celibacy should be. Could be only important at certain times or epochs, but certainly people should not do it if they don't feel called. And clergy more than anyone else have an obligation to have a family.

>>19460887
just letting you know I didn't read your post and no one else will. Just wanted to emotionally exhaust you by riling you up. You're still wrong though and no one likes catholics. Die.

>>19460983
As long as you construe this conversation as me "attacking" people, then it will not be fruitful. You state that I "attack Christians having children" when all I have spoken about is celibacy not being accepted in the manner it is described in scripture, which is actually an inversion of my point. I am not going to continue.

>>19460998
Good. Thanks for bumping the thread a bunch though. I never gave shit about your opinion to begin with.

>>19460887
Every major tenet of the Reformation had considerable support in the catholic tradition. That was eminently true of the central Reformation teaching of justification by faith alone….That the ground of our salvation is the unearned favor of God in Christ, and that all we need do to obtain it is to trust that favor – this was the confession of great catholic saints and teachers….Rome’s reactions [to the Protestant reformers] were the doctrinal decrees of the Council of Trent and the Roman Catechism based upon those decrees. In these decrees, the Council of Trent selected and elevated to official status the notion of justification by faith plus works, which was only one of the doctrines of justification in the medieval theologians and ancient fathers. When the reformers attacked this notion in the name of the doctrine of justification by faith alone – a doctrine also attested to by some medieval theologians and ancient fathers – Rome reacted by canonizing one trend in preference to all the others. What had previously been permitted also (justification by faith alone), now became forbidden. In condemning the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent condemned part of its own catholic tradition.

>>19460887
The Protestants have the church fathers on their side. After Augustine's day, Bede writes against those who believe "that it does not matter whether they live evil lives or do wicked and terrible things, as long as they believe in Christ, because salvation is through faith

>>19461034
>That the ground of our salvation is the unearned favor of God in Christ, and that all we need do to obtain it is to trust that favor – this was the confession of great catholic saints and teachers
One can only believe this if they haven't actually read the fathers, who unanimously professed baptismal regeneration, a doctrine abhorrent to the man-made tradition of "sola fide".
>What had previously been permitted also (justification by faith alone)
Initial justification by faith =/= justification by faith alone. The latter was never permitted, because the necessity of the sacraments was recognized unanimously in the constant tradition of the church, and in the scriptures.
>>19461062
>Bede writes against those who believe "that it does not matter whether they live evil lives or do wicked and terrible things, as long as they believe in Christ, because salvation is through faith
I'm not sure if you're a Catholic on my side or a Protestant who doesn't understand what you're quoting. The fact that Bede writes against those people clearly demonstrates that those heretics who professed a sola-fide/eternal-security type doctrine in their own days were solely mistaken: "Although the apostle Paul preached that we are justified by faith without works, those who understand by this that it does not matter whether they live evil lives or do wicked and terrible things, as long as they believe in Christ, because salvation is through faith, have made a great mistake".

>>19461109
Ah bald assertion in response to my quotes. Priceless.

>>19461118
Bringing up the church fathers without having read them is the worst thing a Protestant to do, because they bury all forms of Protestantism.

>>19461129
Ah sorry you're that weirdo who spams those infographics. I don't respond to you and if I had known it was you I never would have engaged in the first place. You are a sick person and need help, not internet arguments.

>>19461129
Epistle of Barnabus

“Mark how He has described at once both the water and the cross. For these words imply, Blessed are they who, placing their trust in the cross, have gone down into the water; for, says He, they shall receive their reward in due time: then He declares, I will recompense them. But now He says, Their leaves shall not fade. This means, that every word which proceeds out of your mouth in faith and love shall tend to bring conversion and hope to many. Again, another prophet says, And the land of Jacob shall be extolled above every land. Zephaniah 3:19 This means the vessel of His Spirit, which He shall glorify. Further, what says He? And there was a river flowing on the right, and from it arose beautiful trees; and whosoever shall eat of them shall live for ever. Ezekiel 47:12 This means, that we indeed descend into the water full of sins and defilement, but come up, bearing fruit in our heart, having the fear [of God] and trust in Jesus in our spirit. And whosoever shall eat of these shall live for ever, This means: Whosoever, He declares, shall hear you speaking, and believe, shall live for ever.” (Epistle of Barnabas, 11)

It clearly states faith alone leads to eternal life. You can see how catholics misconstrue the references to baptism, yet in the end the epistle affirms faith alone as saving. Just one of many examples. Dont ever post those gay images at me again. The other poster is probably right to not reply to you.

>>19457526
Around me Catholics are all Italians and Latinos, the white people are all Mainline.

>>19461361
Around here the Catholics are just a handful of yankees and tons of latinos. The parish was founded in the 1940s and was a tiny handful of yankees all the way up until the Mexicans started invading in the 1980s followed by even larger waves of Guatemalans. It was a very small building until recently they built a new one. Before that they were having to rent an abandoned hardware store building for the latinos.

>>19461015
You have failed to show even the most basic Christian charity throughout the entire discussion, I will give you that.

>>19461129
You should be ashamed of yourself for posting this. The last section in particular, which implies that the use of the term "catholic" must denote the Roman Catholic Church in particular is disingenuous to the point of deliberate deception and lying. "Catholic" means "universal", it does not mean "Roman Catholic" except in modern speech, and we are dealing with the writings of ancients. The Orthodox Church is actually titled the Orthodox Catholic Church for this reason.

>>19461482
Well fuck you then. If you think Catholic doesn't mean Catholic you really are deluded. I'll pray for you.

I've soijacked God on multiple occasions, I've denied the divinity of Christ purely to bait strangers and acquire (you)s. Will He forgive me?

>>19461770
Straight to the boiler room of hell

>>19461770
Many of His people have done far, far worse before becoming His people, and some even after.

>>19461753
You are misinformed. Catholic comes from the Greek καθολικός which is a normal word meaning "universal" and that is the sense that the Creed uses the term. There is one universal church. Read a book before insulting others on matters you know nothing about, fool.

>>19461438
Like I care
*braps in your face*

>>19461224
>ad hominem because he can't respond to the arguments
Typical.

>>19461261
>Blessed are they who, placing their trust in the cross, have gone down into the water; for, says He, they shall receive their reward in due time: then He declares, I will recompense them
Interesting that you post a passage which entirely supports the Catholic view of justification - that is, initial justification occurring because of faith in the cross THROUGH the waters of baptism. If you see "faith alone" in there, despite the numerous mentions and allusions to baptism, you clearly need to clean your lenses.
>You can see how catholics misconstrue the references to baptism, yet in the end the epistle affirms faith alone as saving.
I haven't seen "faith alone" anywhere in there, but I have seen "both water and the cross". Or, as James more clearly puts it, to debunk your man-made heresy, "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and NOT BY FAITH ALONE".

>>19461482
The word "Catholic" does not denote the Roman Catholic Church, but the entire Catholic church, which includes the Eastern churches. In the ancient days, this universal church included all churches in communion with the apostolic sees, like Antioch, Rome, Jerusalem, etc. Look at the documents of apostolic succession from the earliest sources, and you will see that that same Catholic church mentioned in the creed is the worldwide community of churches which were in communion with the apostolic sees - aka the churches who were represented at the various ecumenical councils. And again, as is obvious to anybody deep in Church history, the Protestant church, by virtue of its being in excommunication from those apostolic sees, is not a part of the Catholic church.

>>19462108
Wow I told you you would pervert it in typical catholic form. And you did. Let me help you by reposting what I already posted but simpler
>And whosoever shall eat of these shall live for ever, This means: Whosoever, He declares, shall hear you speaking, and believe, shall live for ever.

See how all that other stuff SOUNDS catholic, but ultimately the epistle concludes with sola fide? That's how it always goes. I can post more but I doubt you'll concede even now. Even with the explicit truth of the words

>>19462108
>The word "Catholic" does not denote the Roman Catholic Church, but the entire Catholic church, which includes the Eastern churches.
That is the modern definition of it by Roman Catholics. Orthodox do not definite it this way. If you asked any ancient Christian whether the term catholic indicated churches that had been in schism for nigh 1,000 years they would laugh at you.

>>19462132
"Mark how He has described at once both the water and the cross. For these words imply, Blessed are they who, placing their trust in the cross, HAVE GONE DOWN IN THE WATER;"
Yeah, if you think this proves sola fide, you are seriously coping. Please read the unanimous consensus on the early Fathers on baptismal regeneration, before saying such things.

>>19462138
>That is the modern definition of it by Roman Catholics. Orthodox do not definite it this way.
Literally incorrect. While the Catholics and the Orthodox disagree on who the original Catholic church is /now/, they both agree that in the time period we are speaking about, the Catholic church was the institution of churches which were in communion with apostolic sees (the Pentarchy, whose head is the bishop of Rome). To deny this is simply to be ignorant of history, which is no surprise, as "to be deep in history is to cease being Protestant".

>>19462281
And why did they use that term? Because it means universal. They were indicating that those churches as a whole constituted the universal church. This entire point is a red herring because the issue I am referring to is this infograph >>19461129 which states that the ancient use of the term "catholic" is the same as the modern use of the term "Catholic" (specifically meaning Roman Catholics). Fuck off you lying papist sack of shit.

>>19462281
That says that people who believe get baptized. I agree. But that's not what saves. He couldn't be clearer. This is beyond delusional.

>>19462281
Why did you pick another quote instead of addressing the part I posted? Is it because you know that proves sola fide?

In the writings of the church fathers, they often state things simply and just used the wording provided by scripture. If something is a sign there is not necessarily a distinction made between sign and thing-signified for instance. So a Catholic reads them say "the bread is the flesh of Christ" and assumes this is in agreement with their own theology, which is not necessarily so, because the Catholic doctrine is not that simple. It specifies that the bread remains under the accidents of bread but that its substance changes to that of flesh, such that the communicant is eating literal flesh only under the form of bread. A Protestant can also say "the bread is the flesh of Christ" and mean something entirely different than this Aristotelian mechanism. So thus the church father.

>>19462318
>They were indicating that those churches as a whole constituted the universal church
Yes, I agree - the churches in communion with the apostolic sees are members of the universal (Catholic) church. Both the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic church would agree with that, as would any Christian before the Great Schism. The fact remains that your "churches", the Protestant ones, are by their very definition NOT a part of that Catholic church, as was defined in the Council of Nicaea.
>is the same as the modern use of the term "Catholic" (specifically meaning Roman Catholics
Again, not all Catholics are Roman Catholics. The Latin Church is only one of the churches within the Catholic church - as such, the term is being used in exactly the same way (to refer to all churches in communion with the apostolic sees).
>Fuck off you lying papist sack of shit.
"The acts of the flesh are obvious [...] hatred, discord, jealousy, and rage; rivalries, divisions, factions [...] I warn you, as I did before, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God". Please try your best to ask the Holy Spirit to remove the hatred and division from your heart, and to guide you into all truth. The goal of the Christian life is to be filled with the Holy Spirit and sanctified by Him, after all.
>>19462332
>That says that people who believe get baptized. I agree. But that's not what saves. He couldn't be clearer.
Your confusion arises because you don't understand the purpose of baptism in the early church. It was the outward sign of an invisible grace - namely, the acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord, the acceptance of His sacrifice on the cross for the remission of mankind's sins, and wanting to be joined to His death and resurrection - thus, the faith was CONFIRMED by baptism, making them inseparable. That is why Peter says quite clearly, "In the ark a few people, only eight souls, were saved through water. And this water symbolizes THE BAPTISM THAT SAVES YOU ALSO —not the removal of dirt from the body, but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ". It is the necessary physical sign and seal of faith in Christ, and thus, plays an instrumental role in accepting the grace of salvation by the death of Jesus Christ - "whoever believes AND IS BAPTIZED will be saved".
>>19462347
Because you can't take a part of the quote out of context. The author clearly shows that he believes faith in the cross and baptism to both be essential elements, saying that those who trust in the cross and have gone down into the water are blessed. Again, please look into the consensus of the Fathers on baptismal regeneration. If you only take bits of pieces of quotes, you won't know what the actual ancient Christians as a whole believed, because you will be reading your preconceived biases and theology into it.

Every time I see a Catholic wall of text it makes me think Islam might be a good idea.

>>19462381
Hilariously, you're entire argument revolves around assuming the conclusion. You say that we are reading the fathers wrong because "you know" that the church fathers taught something different, which you prove by using the same fallacious readings you are here. Yikes.

>>19462873
>Hilariously, you're entire argument revolves around assuming the conclusion.
You have it completely backwards. I was a non-denominational Protestant, and by giving an honest reading of the Fathers and letting them speak in their own terms and in their own context, I came to the conclusion that they taught the same doctrines as the Catholic and Orthodox churches. How I came to believe the Catholic church's specific claims were more likely to be true than the Orthodox's is another story, but the charge that I came up with the conclusion first and then went backwards is sorely mistaken, and wishful thinking. I'm telling you, instead of wasting time discussing this with me, you should just go read the Fathers themselves, starting from the Apostolic Fathers and working forwards. You might be surprised what you find them speaking about.

>>19462903
How about you open literally any history book about Christian origins and see immediately that catholic claims are bullshit? I mean don't tell mr you were stupid enough to convert without actually doing any research at all?

>>19462903
I mean for one you're wrong about the church fathers, but for 2, who gives a shit what they think regardless? Please explain why their opinion matters very carefully. Are they infallible?

>>19462957
What are you talking about? We aren't even talking about Catholic doctrine right now, we are just talking about the apostolic faith. There are many Protestants who believe in the real presence, Luther called Mary the Queen of Heaven, and the early Anglicans used to ask for intercessory prayer. Now, if you want to talk about specifically Catholic doctrine, and what convinced me to leave Protestantism, that's fine. I've read many of the primary sources on Church History and the acta of the ecumenical councils (and associated documents and letters), and there are so many mentions the fact of apostolic succession, unity and presidency being from the seat of St. Peter, the bishops of Rome being successors of St. Peter, and the necessity of assembling only where there are apostolic bishops, that I saw no other choice but to convert to one of the two. Now, I did extensive research into both EO and Catholicism (who both agree the bishop of Rome was the primate and first among equals, by the way), and that conversation is probably neither here nor here, and might be a bit too much in-house baseball for this talk. But please give me the charity of assuming that I am not just a retard who made his choice blindly. Would you receive it kindly if I said the same about you? I am literally telling you to go read the primary sources themselves, with an open heart, and come to your own conclusion. There is no need to justify yourself to me through insults. I would rather you study, than argue.
>>19463031
>argument 1: you're wrong (no proof)
>argument 2: even if you are right, it doesn't matter
The opinions of the early church fathers matter because they, and their disciples. were the ones who knew the apostles personally, and thus had the deepest understanding of what the apostolic doctrines themselves were - the type of teachings that the apostles were teaching. For obvious reasons, what the apostles taught is of the utmost importance, and for that reason, the writings of people like St. Irenaeus (who was the disciple of St. Polycarp, in turn the disciple of St. John) should be viewed as the closest link we have to finding out what kinds of things St. John actually taught. Now many of their writings are lost, but the writings we do have are extremely valuable in elucidating the apostolic teachings. This is the value of the church fathers.
>Are they infallible?
Only when gathered in an ecumenical council, or when they all agree with each other (for example, on baptismal regeneration) - the latter of which is called the "ordinary and universal magisterium" [perhaps summarized as the constant teaching of the church, originating from the Holy Spirit].

>>19463076
>were the ones who knew the apostles personally, and thus had the deepest understanding of what the apostolic doctrines themselves were - the type of teachings that the apostles were teaching
well then its sure weird they don't agree with each other, and were deeply confused about concepts like the trinity. You think Christ might have mentioned that to the apostles and then to them. Weird.

Also just FYI there is zero historic evidence for the claim that any of them knew the apostles. Except maybe one, and even then, meh. Please feel free to provide secular historical critical evidence to the contrary. I've checked. There isn't any.

>>19463114
>well then its sure weird they don't agree with each other, and were deeply confused about concepts like the trinity
It isn't at all strange that they would not have every single tenet of the faith formulated in the legalistic manner than was present in the definitions of the ecumenical councils. We know there was a very clear exposition of Trinitarian belief both in the gospels (eg. the Trinitarian baptismal formula), and in the writings of the early fathers (eg. St. Irenaeus says: "Thus then there is shown forth one God, the Father, not made, invisible, creator of all things; above whom there is no other God, and after whom there is no other God. And, since God is rational, therefore by (the) Word He created the things that were made; and God is Spirit, and by (the) Spirit He adorned all things" - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, all God).
>there is zero historic evidence for the claim that any of them knew the apostles. Except maybe one, and even then, meh.
Literally the only evidence available on the matter, the primary sources and early histories (eg. in Eusebius), unanimously testify that they did know the successors of the apostles. For you to suggest that they did not contrary to all of this positive evidence, requires counter-evidence for your claim (eg. an early and authoritative source saying they did not know the apostles), which I have not seen. To disregard the only available evidence because the conclusion is undesirable is anti-rational.

>>19463168
Actually you have no concept of the historical critical process and that is why no living historian agrees with you, so I do not agree to your ridiculous terms by which you define the process of historical reconstruction when you are unfamiliar with the field.

And no, your account is prima facie absurd anyway. The entire notion that there was an apostolic deposit direct from Jesus that didn't include at the very least a fleshed out nicene creed is beyond absurd. Or it proves that anything not directly explicated in 33 AD isn't part of the faith.

And how do you see that working anyway? Things like Mary's perpetual virginity were not known or expressed until centuries later. So that suggests this secret apostolic deposit was hidden or concealed... for what purpose? Basically this ends up being gnosticism. Which is actually where the concept of apostolic succession came from. They, like you, claimed they had secret teachings of the apostles that were passed on without wider knowledge, and in response, the proto orthodox church claimed THEY had this succession instead. So your entire church is built on gnostic concepts that were in fact not known to the earliest church, which is why apostolic succession is only written about later.

>>19463409
wow, great fucking post. Actually perspective changing. Thanks.

>>19463168
>Eusebius
You mean right hand man to the one merging church and state with an interest in establishing its control structures?

>>19463114
>Please feel free to provide secular historical critical evidence to the contrary
Placing your faith in the hands of secular academics. Prostestants bruh.

>>19463997
The point is that if you believe you have objective historia truth someone outside of your cult should be able to locate it. But they can't. Weird stuff!

>>19463409
>Actually you have no concept of the historical critical process and that is why no living historian agrees with you, so I do not agree to your ridiculous terms by which you define the process of historical reconstruction when you are unfamiliar with the field.
Not an argument, just an appeal to authority (obviously).
>The entire notion that there was an apostolic deposit direct from Jesus that didn't include at the very least a fleshed out nicene creed is beyond absurd. Or it proves that anything not directly explicated in 33 AD isn't part of the faith.
The Nicene creed was formulated specifically because heretics who thought they were receiving the apostolic deposit prompted a formulation of the legal definition of orthodoxy. I don't know what you believe, but we believe that not only did the Holy Spirit teach the apostles, but that the Holy Spirit was also passed to their successors through the laying on of hands, who continued to lead those successors into "all truth".
>Things like Mary's perpetual virginity were not known or expressed until centuries later. So that suggests this secret apostolic deposit was hidden or concealed... for what purpose
Like you pointed out, just because we don't have texts which EXPRESS the belief, doesn't mean that belief was not a part of the apostolic deposit - in fact, such a terminus quo for mentions of the perpetual virginity indicates that the origin of the doctrine was some time much earlier, at least definitely earlier than the proto-Evangelium of James in the ~130s AD.
>So your entire church is built on gnostic concepts that were in fact not known to the earliest church, which is why apostolic succession is only written about later.
Apostolic succession is found as early as Clement:
“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42-44).
And from fathers as illustrious as St. Irenaeus, who all who spoke on him agreed he was the disciple of blessed St. Polycarp, himself a disciple of St. John. Your idea that apostolic succession was a fabrication goes against all of the evidence available to us.
>>19463917
You mean the earliest church historian and father of church history, who is the most consulted early source for what was happening in the early church? Yeah, that Eusebius.

>>19464148
>Apostolic succession is found as early as Clement
Your quote doesn't say anything about apostolic succession. Isolate the specific part.

>just because we don't have texts which EXPRESS the belief, doesn't mean that belief was not a part of the apostolic deposit
Ok fine, I use that argument to justify everything Presbyterians believe. Plus, given how the Catholic Church violently oppressed and murdered for millennia, I submit that the true faith was constantly present but brutalized by satanic monsters that entire time. All Calvinist teaching goes directly back to Christ, but there's no record of it.

>>19464148
>church history
The only church history I need is Genesis to Revelation.

>>19464172
>Your quote doesn't say anything about apostolic succession. Isolate the specific part.
"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers."
1. The apostles appointed successors to be bishops, and they were tested by the Holy Spirit to make sure they were good candidates
"For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry"
2. The apostles, being guided by the Holy Spirit (having received perfect foreknowledge), not only appointed those men, but appointed other men as contingencies, so that other men approved by the Holy Spirit might succeed the first ones

This is literally apostolic succession.

>Ok fine, I use that argument to justify everything Presbyterians believe
The thing is that your doctrines do not appear at all in the Fathers, whereas ours do (which is why they are taken as dogma by every single ancient apostolic church), and are later confirmed by the Holy Spirit through the same method used originally at the Council of Jerusalem, to the Council of Nicaea - ecumenical councils.

>>19464190
Exactly. "To be deep in history is to cease being Protestant".
Protip: Don't ever look into why the New Testament canon is what it is, and don't ever Google the Council of Rome 382. I don't want you to have an aneurism, brother.

>>19453835
*farts*

>>19464201
>This is literally apostolic succession.
No it's not. Apostolic succession, per your church, involves the Bishop of Rome. I see presbyters appointing presbyters, which is what presbyterians do.

>Exactly. "To be deep in history is to cease being Protestant".
You've already admitted you haven't read any contemporary historians on this topic, so don't make me laugh. The Catholic Church didn't invent the Bible or even compile the NT. They couldn't even figure out what books to include into the 6th century, well after the Council of Rome. Protestants defined the Bible before Catholics did, because they figured it out while it took you until Trent to infallibly decide.

>>19464250
>Apostolic succession, per your church, involves the Bishop of Rome
You clearly don't understand what apostolic succession is. Please at least read the Wikipedia article.
>I see presbyters appointing presbyters, which is what presbyterians do.
Did you miss the part where he is talking about the apostles appointing people to the "office of bishop", because our Lord Jesus Christ knew "that there would be strife for the office of bishop"?
>The Catholic Church didn't invent the Bible or even compile the NT.
Please show me evidence of your New Testament canon prior to the Council of Rome 382.
>They couldn't even figure out what books to include into the 6th century, well after the Council of Rome.
How do you explain the following list from the acta of the Council of Rome 382:
"Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon [i.e. Chronicles] two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus [i.e. Sirach] one book.

Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book, with Ginoth, that is, with his Lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee one book, Amos one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books [i.e. Ezra & Nehemiah], Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books.

Likewise the order of the writings of the New and Eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book.

The Epistles of Paul the Apostle in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one.

Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealot, the Apostle one epistle."

>>19464201
>Don't ever look into why the New Testament canon is what it is
I just looked it up, and per Pheme Perkins, a Catholic historian, the overriding criterion for canonization was common use among individual communities who decided what books to use on a congregational level. She also says that various authorities in centers like Byzantium and Ephesus made decisions independently, and this eventually stabilized by the 6th century in various independent councils unrelated to and not binding on each other.

>>19464276
>the overriding criterion for canonization was common use among individual communities who decided what books to use on a congregational level.
Of course, that is how Councils work. Now, can you explain why you use the New Testament canon that you do? Where is the first mention of your New Testament canon?

>>19464275
>Please show me evidence of your New Testament canon prior to the Council of Rome 382.
There were councils after Rome with different lists of books, so that's a pretty shitty point. Up to the late sixth century actually.

>>19464285
>Of course, that is how Councils work. Now, can you explain why you use the New Testament canon that you do? Where is the first mention of your New Testament canon?
But none of those councils had to do with papal authority, and the decisions they made were based on the books local congregations used. So where is the catholic church in this?

>>19464287
I couldn't help but notice that you didn't answer my question. I know that the only church history you need is Genesis to Revelation, but can you show me the first mention of your New Testament canon prior to the Council of Rome 382?

>>19454139
No one thinks sola scriptura is wrong because prots disagree with each other about “minor” particulars (like whether or not sodomy is a sin or not lol). People think sola scriptura is wrong because it’s a moronic understanding of scripture and the Christian tradition and was latched onto by European sovereigns that wanted to wrest control of their nations from Rome

>>19464292
>But none of those councils had to do with papal authority
Except for the fact that the Council of Rome 382 was presided over by Pope Damascus I, right?
>the decisions they made were based on the books local congregations used
That is how councils work. Bishops come, meet together, and report on how their various dioceses see a certain issue, and, guided by the Holy Spirit, they come to a decision.
>So where is the catholic church in this?
It is a council of the Catholic church presided over by Pope Damascus I. What more do you want? Do you think an ecumenical council is just the Pope sitting in a room meditating until he comes up with the answer to whatever question they are all pondering? You need to do more research, man.

>>19464294
Athanasius' Festal Letter 39 in 367?

Now answer mine: How was the Council of Rome the "final word" when there were subsequent councils with different book lists. It wasn't the first or the last, so really Rome was just following suit.

>>19464304
There were other councils not presided over by popes though. And Rome was a regional council not binding on other regions. This is proving Catholicism isn't true.

>>19464305
>Athanasius' Festal Letter 39 in 367
You mean the same Athanasius that believed in the divine authority of ecumenical councils, apostolic succession, and staunchly promoted the perpetual virginity of Mary? Why would you listen to such a heretic?
>How was the Council of Rome the "final word" when there were subsequent councils with different book lists.
Because that earliest mention at a council being in Rome was the Western church's formulation of the canon - the other churches are allowed to have other traditions. Not all councils are ecumenical.
>>19464312
>There were other councils not presided over by popes though
All the accepted councils had papal legates who were to ratify the decisions made there. See the acta of the Council of Ephesus.
>This is proving Catholicism isn't true.
This is proving you don't understand how councils work in the Catholic church.

>>19464363
Yeah your position has collapsed, as expected. There's not even anything to rebut here. You've conceded way more than necessary frankly. Please provide a contemporary historian who claims that every council in Christian history had a "papal legate" to ratify decisions made there. That would be your only way forward here, but lol. And no, I won't take your word for it, and neither do I have to prove a negative. Luckily for you I will settle for expert testimony.

>>19464389
>Please provide a contemporary historian who claims that every council in Christian history had a "papal legate" to ratify decisions made there
I admit that I should have been more precise in my wording, especially in such a nuanced topic. My position is that all the universally accepted councils - ie. the ecumenical councils - had Papal legates in attendance, or were ratified by the Pope, until the Great Schism. The only exception is the Council of Constantinople I, whose famous Canon III (of which the Roman scribes/correctores of Gratian add, "this canon is one of those that the Apostolic See of Rome has not accepted from the beginning and ever since") which, as you know, later led to the tensions which culminated in the great schism.

>>19464488
So you've now conceded everything. I guess your posturing was just that. The pope wasn't needed to figure out the NT after all!

>>19464517
Conceded everything? Everything I have "conceded" is perfectly in line with orthodox Catholic belief. The Pope is, according to the ecumenical councils, the first among equals, first in honour, and head of the church, the successor of Peter through whom "Peter has spoken", who ratified the canons of every single council except the one which led to the Great Schism. If this is a "concession", then I will gladly concede.
>The pope wasn't needed to figure out the NT after all!
In the Western church, his ratification was required to formalize the first written canonical list of books in the New Testament, which canon you still use. In the Eastern church, as is the same today, local decisions can be made by local bishops. In both the Western and Eastern church, the Pope was required to ratify the canons and decisions made at ecumenical councils - and the only instance where this didn't happen led to the Great Schism. Welcome to Catholic ecclesiology 101.

>>19464540
>I will gladly concede.
Only part I read. Your cognitive dissonance is pitiful. Look how far you've changed your position from your first arrogant post, and now you still believe nothing's changed. Grow up.

>>19464571
>Look how far you've changed your position from your first arrogant post
Can you please point out how my position changed? I came and left believing the Pope is the first among equals, first in honour, head of the church, successor of Peter, and who ratified the canons of every single council except the one that led to the Great Schism. Am I supposed to have suffered some great loss here? Because from my perspective, this is just the orthodox Catholic conception of the Papacy.

>>19464517
that's lit tho

>this thread
God I hate protestants, especially the american kind.