Why should I believe in the writings of a bunch of medieval theologians rather than just believing in the Bible?

>>17781289 (OP)
>rather than just believing in the Bible?
the doctrine of perspicuity is what lead to 40,000 different denominations and 10,000 murderous cults.

The bible may be the infallible word of God, but man has an incredibly fallible way of interpreting the word.

Would you rather take scriptural analysis from a Church father whose spent the last 40 years praying and reading scripture? or the felon church pastor with tattoos who just finished his rock concert? who do you think has a better idea on how to interpret scripture?

>>17781289 (OP)
>but man has an incredibly fallible way of interpreting the word
Right, and those medieval theologians are men as well.
>Would you rather take scriptural analysis from a Church father whose spent the last 40 years praying and reading scripture? or the felon church pastor with tattoos who just finished his rock concert?
Why do I have to "take scriptural analysis" in the first place? I'm literate and can just read the Bible.

>>17781289 (OP)
Why should I believe in the writings of a bunch of scientists rather than just looking at the nature?

>>17781303
>Right, and those medieval theologians are men as well.
those men have been educated on doctrine, theology, and tradition since they entered the Church. They have worked up the ranks of the clergy and have been granted enough influence that people within the church listen to their words.

Have you?

>I'm literate and can just read the Bible.
1 Cor 2:14 - The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

its not a matter of reading. Its a matter of comprehension. Even if you think you understand it, you could be pulling a completely different lesson from a verse than what was meant. I mean that's exactly how we ended up with all these denominations.

>"I dont need no pastor! I understand all this myself! and God said you're all meant to have sex with me!"

Why should you believe either rather than just accepting science?

>>17781310
That's not analogous because science is testable and empirical, while religion deals with divine revelation. I can't test a theologian's speculation, but I can with a scientist.

>>17781314
>those men have been educated on doctrine, theology, and tradition since they entered the Church.
So are they "incredibly fallible" as you say, or not? Besides, the question is what are those doctrines, theology, and traditions. If they come from divine revelation I already have that (ie Scripture), and if they don't why should I care about them?
>its not a matter of reading. Its a matter of comprehension.
That's what I mean by "reading". I can read and comprehend written text, just like I'm doing right now.

>>17781289 (OP)
Because medieval theologians bring Pagan vitalistic SOVL to Christianity. And give it the ability to be a great intellectual tradition. Yes, what the theologians espouse isn't Christianity as thought by the Apostles or Church Fathers; but that's okay it doesn't have to be, those two groups could have gotten the faith wrong.
Also, if you want to interpret scripture by yourself you won't have the right context to understand it. If you want to know what the Apostles or Church Fathers believed as your basis of your faith. I recommend looking at this:
https://ante-nicenechristianity.com/
>>17781298
>40,000 different denominations and 10,000 murderous cults
The source that you got those numbers from also counts 100+ different catholic and orthodox churches as separate denominations; because it counts a churches a different if they are in a different country even though they may be under the same organization. Their is only like 170ish flavors of Christianity if you base it on doctrines or beliefs.

>>17781335
>So are they "incredibly fallible" as you say, or not?
MAN is incredibly fallible. As an overall umbrella term regarding all of humanity. We fuck up.
How do you prevent fuck ups? Get a professional to do the job.

They are the equivalent to a master electrician working on a job vs a homeowner

>the question is what are those doctrines, theology, and tradition
one example is picrel in a protestant church going directly against scripture because
>"it was only relevant for the time"

>>17781344
>MAN is incredibly fallible. As an overall umbrella term regarding all of humanity. We fuck up.
So how do you know you haven't fucked up choosing your professional interpreter you claim is required? Do you need another professional for that?
>How do you prevent fuck ups? Get a professional to do the job
Not every job requires a professional.

>>17781289 (OP)
Church fathers are not considered canonical in Christianity, though how you take or discard them will lead to different outcomes.
Much of Protestantism is a consequence of people like Luther and Calvin both really liking Augustine while having disdain for certain others.

But at the end of the day if you really want to be the most Biblical then you have to be Jewish or Jew-ish and discard everything that led to the development of a new and separate religion.

>>17781352
>So how do you know you haven't fucked up choosing your professional interpreter you claim is required?
Because the church has had apostolic succession since the time of Christ.
Christ chose Peter, Peter chose Linus, Linus chose Cletus, Cletus chose Clement and so on until we've arrived at Leo XIV.
These men are inspired by the holy spirit.

Aside from all of this, Christ gave us a Church not a Bible. The Church created the canon Bible you're reading right now. Without these "professional interpreters" you'd be reading the gospel of Thomas as scripture.

>Not every job requires a professional.
I wouldn't leave the fate of my soul up to an amateur.

>>17781289 (OP)
americans are just english speaking muslims, they believe the King James Bible plopped out of the sky one day

>>17781344
>They are the equivalent to a master electrician working on a job vs a homeowner
If we're talking about someone like Thomas Aquinas, it's more like getting an illiterate Mexican who can't speak English and who grew up in a house without electricity. Just read his commentary on Romans, it's embarrassing. Unironically, an unlearned interpreter reading the text in a vacuum is better off than relying on the pagan corruption of the middle ages.

>>17781344
>one example is picrel in a protestant church going directly against scripture because
>>"it was only relevant for the time"
So in other words these are people who don't believe in sola scriptura

>>17781380
>Aquinas is a bad theologian
But a theologian nonetheless.
Not a mall security guard who preaches part time on Sunday.

Nietzsche was a shitty philosopher imo but he was still a philosopher.

>>17781386
>Not a mall security guard who preaches part time on Sunday.
Is that what John Calvin was?

>>17781383
>sola scriptura
Protestants can't even claim sola scriptura.
The ending of Mark is not originally written by mark.
Either protestants have to deny its divine inspiration, or deny sola scriptura.
Catholics don't have this problem. And again, the canon scripture was decided by the Church. how can you say:
>"we only follow what scripture says and that was decided by the church"
???

>>17781389
No, John Calvin was the first.
A shitty theologian who couldn't figure out the metaphysics behind an omnipotent God and free will coexisting.

>>17781344
>master electrician
The problem is that the car companies are intentionally making it hard for home owners to work on their own vehicle. The car doesn't need to be so complicated, but they want you coming back to the dealer who has the special tool, just to change a light bulb.

Some of the mysteries don't need to be mysteries. They are intentionally hidden.

No one lights a lamp and hides it in a clay jar or puts it under a bed. Instead, they put it on a stand, so that those who come in can see the light

>>17781401
>Some of the mysteries don't need to be mysteries. They are intentionally hidden.
I agree. Which is why Catholics don't shill a specific translation of the Bible. Read whichever version you can find the clearest, but don't be afraid to reference Church fathers, should you need clarification on a verse or chapter.

Unlike IFB's shilling the KJV as if it was literally Jesus himself.

>>17781393
>Protestants can't even claim sola scriptura.
>The ending of Mark is not originally written by mark.
>Either protestants have to deny its divine inspiration, or deny sola scriptura.
What you meant to say is "I don't know what sola scriptura is". Does the Gospel According to Mark exist? Yes? Then the question of which reading is original does not impugn its ability to serve as the sole infallible rule of faith. That which is inspired is that which was written by the apostles and prophets, this is the revelation of God and the rule of faith and life.

It is hard to grasp exactly how absurd what you wrote here is. "Either protestants have to deny its divine inspiration, or deny sola scriptura." Why? How does "the longer ending of Mark is not original" equate to "the Gospel of Mark is not inspired"? How does prostituting yourself to a pope above the authority of God somehow resolve this supposed issue?
>And again, the canon scripture was decided by the Church.
The words of a faithless heart. The canon or scripture was decided by God in inspiring them, and they derive their authority solely from the fact they are the word of God, on account of which they are to be believed. This claim of the Roman church to be the basis of scripture itself is fundamentally a denial of the doctrine of inspiration. Tell me, could your church make the Gospel of Thomas canon scripture? Can the pope add the Islamic quran to the bible?

>>17781396
Aquinas didn't believe in the idol of free will either, incidentally.

>>17781413
Protestants need to deny the divine inspiration of the ENDING of mark, not the entire gospel. As you said yourself, since its not original and
>That which is inspired is that which was written by the apostles and prophets

also
>the canon or scripture was decided by God in inspiring them, and they derive their authority solely from the fact they are the word of God, on account of which they are to be believed.
"The scripture is to believe because it is to be believed"
Not winning anyone over with that.

>>17781417
Wrong.
>Question 83, Response 3 Summa
>Free-will is the cause of its own movement, because by his free-will man moves himself to act. But it does not of necessity belong to liberty that what is free should be the first cause of itself, as neither for one thing to be cause of another need it be the first cause. God, therefore, is the first cause, Who moves causes both natural and voluntary. And just as by moving natural causes He does not prevent their acts being natural, so by moving voluntary causes He does not deprive their actions of being voluntary: but rather is He the cause of this very thing in them; for He operates in each thing according to its own nature.

>https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1083.htm

Aquinas even quotes Catholic Deuterocanon
>On the contrary, It is written (Sirach 15:14): "God made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel"; and the gloss adds: "That is of his free-will."

>>17781410
>Unlike IFB's shilling the KJV as if it was literally Jesus himself.

Im more worried about Islam, and their failure to understand how three persons can be one God.

>>17781419
The church doesn’t even make that claim that they decided the canon of scripture. So you’re just spouting bullshit.

>>17781419
>Protestants need to deny the divine inspiration of the ENDING of mark, not the entire gospel
We do not need to deny it since we do not have infallible knowledge of the autographic text. It is prudent for the believer to exegete every plausible reading or scripture lest he should despise the words of God. However, this has nothing to do with sola scriptura.
>The scripture is to believe because it is to be believed"
That's what you hallucinated me saying. Again, the scripture is to be believed because it is the word of God.
>>17781421
This is consistent with Calvin, who did not (and nor do we) deny the existence of the human will. This is also very consistent with Calvin: https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm
Where Aquinas and Calvin differ on the will is in whether the decree of election was based in the good pleasure of God, or co-operation of the will of man. As for that free will which you make an idol, of men autonomously acting independently of the divine decree, they are in agreement as Aquinas expressly denies the existence of this libertarian free will in your own citation: "But it does not of necessity belong to liberty that what is free should be the first cause of itself, as neither for one thing to be cause of another need it be the first cause. God, therefore, is the first cause,"

>>17781432
>here is the church using their authority approving the scripture used for sola scriptura
>checkmate Cathol-ick!
Do Protestants really…?

>>17781344
"Too many Americans today rely on their own research and their own eyes, when they should be listening to what the media and the government is telling them."
If you’re on this Indonesian metal smithing website that you’re not really into government and mainstream media narratives. But just trusting and relying on establishment experts is completely fine when it comes to clerics because it just is!.

>>17781440
>Again, the scripture is to be believed because it is the word of God.
How do you determine what the word of God is? is it self evident for everyone to see? Because there's still "Christians" to this day who believe Enoch is scripture.
Why cant you just have enough intellectual honesty to realize that "canon" scripture wasn't a thing for a millennia after Christ.

>>17781446
>not because she subsequently approved them by her authority…..but because, being written under the inspiration of the holy Spirit, they have God as their author,
>here is the church using her authority approving the scripture.
Do you know how to read?

>>17781474
>How do you determine what the word of God is? is it self evident for everyone to see?
For those who have the Spirit of God, it is self-evident.
>Because there's still "Christians" to this day who believe Enoch is scripture.
Now we must carefully distinguish between subjective knowledge and objective truth. For knowledge is whatever belief I have which is true, but this belongs to me, and nothing is "known" apart form subjects for rocks do not believe anything. That scripture is the word of God is true objectively, outside of me, and irrespective of anything in me. The question therefore is not whether the scriptures are the word of God (which is objectively true, and even the papists must concede it) but how do I know it? Now we maintain that the inspiration of the scriptures alone vindicates sola scriptura, for insofar as Romans 3:28 is the word of God it holds His authority, and is to be believed absolutely apart from any human authority (which cannot add or subtract from God's words) on that basis. But with regards to my knowledge of it this derives from the indestructible will of God, whose will in speaking was that the elect should hear Him, to which end He uses various means from the objective proofs of their inspiration to the tradition of the Church in delivering them, but the ultimate basis upon which the saint is persuaded of their divine inspiration is the Holy Spirit testifying in our hearts together with the word.
>Why cant you just have enough intellectual honesty to realize that "canon" scripture wasn't a thing for a millennia after Christ.
Because it is literally untrue. This is a historical claim, and not a theological one as was made previously. And as a historical claim it is categorically false, as the people of God have recognized the divine books since before even the birth of Christ.

>>17781511
From the Westminster Confession of Faith
>We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture;a and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

>>17781374
>Because the church has had apostolic succession since the time of Christ.
So? Even within Catholicism apostolic succession isn't about being a "professional interpreter of Scripture", it's about being able to validly administer the sacraments.
>These men are inspired by the holy spirit.
How do you know that?
>I wouldn't leave the fate of my soul up to an amateur.
The fate of your soul is up to God

>>17781289 (OP)
Because monkey retards like you are too stupid to interpret sacred texts and you end up becoming like a retarded evangelical sending all their money to Israel. Also God left a church, not the bible, and those who are protagonists of the bible in the early days were the Church, there was no "new testament" but a living breathing church.

>>17781289 (OP)
Why should you believe in the Bible if it was written by those same theologians? Also the Bible narrates the perspective of the Prophets and the apostles. I mean, you can trust a lot of it, but not it all, because it is the version of someone else about what the Son of God said and did.

>>17781511
>For those who have the Spirit of God, it is self-evident.
NTA, but the other anon’s whole point was that Jesus chose those who’d have the Spirit of God, and they’d in turn choose others who’d acquired it, and so on in a chain of apostolic succession.
>And as a historical claim it is categorically false, as the people of God have recognized the divine books since before even the birth of Christ
The Old Testament, yes. But Islam also affirms huge parts of the Old Testament as well. It’s the New Testament that the different early Christian groups disagreed on, and the current canon is what those with apostolic succession decided back then, after drawing up on not just their faith and experience but the faith and experience of others who were also part of the tradition before them. Hence why this tradition is important, as it served as a guiding light.

>>17783714
>and they’d in turn choose others who’d acquired it
The Spirit of God is not an it, He is the third person of the Trinity and He is not tossed about by the whims of mere men. Every believer has the Holy Spirit.
>in a chain of apostolic succession
There is no chain of apostolic succession, not of that kind, as not only was the office of apostle extraordinary and to persist only for a short time, but the bloated bureaucratic ecclesiology of the church of Rome is wholly novel, being unheard of by the apostles, and therefore they cannot claim to be their successors in any respect.
>The Old Testament, yes.
How did they know the Old Testament is the word of God?
>the current canon is what those with apostolic succession decided back then
Again, it is not true. There was no event where men in pointy hats got together and "decided what the bible is", there are Christians citing the New Testament as scripture before any list of canon was produced, the vast majority of the New Testament was never disputed, only a few books outside the New Testament were ever held to be canon (and never outside one or two "home regions"), and when lists of canon were produced they never claimed to be authoritative over the entire Church, let alone to be the basis of scripture's authority. What's more, it is not true that Christians never disagreed about the Old Testament canon (they did so until the Reformation), and the canon which was recognized by the Jews before the coming of the Lord is the same as ourselves, lacking the apocrypha which Rome would later pretend to make divine scripture.
>Hence why this tradition is important, as it served as a guiding light.
Proper Christian tradition is sub-biblical, it is merely the passing down of Christian truth from generation to generation, and is not an authority in and of itself.

>>17783749
dunno, seems legit to me, your criticisms are so shallow and surface level that they aren’t worth talking about and the apostles will likely just roll with the catholics and orthodox methinks

>>17781298
>Would you rather take scriptural analysis from a Church father whose spent the last 40 years praying and reading scripture? or the felon church pastor with tattoos who just finished his rock concert?
That depends, did the church father diddle little kids?

>>17783749
>not only was the office of apostle extraordinary and to persist only for a short time
says who?
>the bloated bureaucratic ecclesiology of the church of Rome is wholly novel, being unheard of by the apostles, and therefore they cannot claim to be their successors in any respect
surprise surprise as the church grows so must the bureaucracy to ensure its functioning and that heresies aren't propagated
>There was no event where men in pointy hats got together and "decided what the bible is"
I guess the councils fucking disappeared from history
>How did they know the Old Testament is the word of God?
Cuz the prophecies and foundations for a messianic figure are in there? And also as they had the Holy spirit due to the fact that they were chosen in apostolic succession
>it is not true that Christians never disagreed about the Old Testament canon (they did so until the Reformation), and the canon which was recognized by the Jews before the coming of the Lord is the same as ourselves, lacking the apocrypha which Rome would later pretend to make divine scripture
the fact that there were dissenters who agreed more with the Jews is none of my concern, they can protest and create their own sects based on their respective ideas (heh, heh, protestant, get it?)

>>17783820
>says who?
The bible.
>surprise surprise as the church grows so must the bureaucracy
Apparently not since we never needed your bureaucracy. But if these offices are novel, how are they successors of the apostles? The apostles had no popes. They had no cardinals. They had no archbishops. They had no bishops. They had no priests. And since all of these represent a different gospel than the apostles, which is not another, how then are they in any sense "successors"?
>I guess the councils fucking disappeared from history
It's more that your anachronistic mythology of what happened at the councils was never in history.
>Cuz the prophecies and foundations for a messianic figure are in there? And also as they had the Holy spirit due to the fact that they were chosen in apostolic succession
Sir the question was about the Jews before the birth of Christ.
>the fact that there were dissenters who agreed more with the Jews is none of my concern
None of your concern, so when they say what you want that proves it, when they don't say what you want they're just dissenters and who cares. What this demonstrates is that the tradition Rome claims doesn't exist either, there is no body of teaching one may reference called "tradition", but the term is a throwaway to justify whatever Rome happens to be doing at the time. I find your "tradition" is very modern. A much better standard is the word of God in scripture, which never changes, and by which we are to reform the traditions of men in obedience to the Lord.

>>17781289 (OP)
>the writings of a bunch of medieval theologians
Literally what the bible is

>>17783856
I could respond, but I think your final point illustrates the differences between us:
>A much better standard is the word of God in scripture, which never changes, and by which we are to reform the traditions of men in obedience to the Lord
Yes, there are verses that affirm the primacy of the teachings of the Lord to the traditions of men. But I believe the teachings are spread out through what has now become tradition. I agree with you somewhat that Rome is not supreme; I personally lead towards orthodoxy and the tradition for me is ancient and very archaic in many respects compared to the refined theology of Rome or even some Protestant works. But this will lead us nowhere.

>>17781344
So what about the verse of calling no man Father? Or do you just get to pick and choose

Do people not see how churchianity became like the Pharisees themselves?

>>17781298
>40,000 different denominations
You made this number up, because you don't care about the truth. You love to lie, because you hate God.

>>17784283
M8
It was just a random number, aka hyperbole
Relax

>>17781289 (OP)
>Why should I believe a bunch of books, rather than just believing in a book?

>>17781298
The “father” (fucking hilarious btw) thinks that saint worship is okay lol

>>17781289 (OP)
Because god gave us reason to understand his creation.

>>17781352
>So how do you know you haven't fucked up choosing your professional interpreter you claim is required?
This is what the magisterium is for. The church is a great company of theologians and they have, again and again, over the centuries held up these men as speakers of truth.