Thread 18082398

The Romanists and Greeks CANNOT deny that tradition can become corrupt. They both side with us against the other on certain issues: the Romanists will join with us against the Greeks in affirming original sin or the filioque, while the Greeks join us against Rome on the papacy or the denial of the cup. Both groups claim to be the guardians of supposed apostolic tradition, indeed, they acknowledge the other to be the same, yet not only do such major inconsistencies exist in the "tradition" but in ways in which either side frequently finds common ground with the Protestants against the other. Therefore they must and cannot help but affirm tradition has become corrupt in the other side (and therefore, can become corrupt in theory, because it has in fact), indeed, so much so that both sides are theologically compelled to affirm the Protestant reformers were more pure and correct in certain things than the rival guardians of "tradition". When tradition contradicts itself, who can say who is right? There is no other standard but the word of God in holy scripture, which can burn away human innovations, errors and abuses from the sacred tradition.

>>18082398 (OP)
Amen. Massive amounts of Orthobro seething inbound.

Scripture is just one part of the apostolic tradition, it's in no ways separate from it.
If tradition is corruptible, then so is scripture.

Scripture serves tradition.
The promulgation of the gospel was never dependent solely on the written word, nor could it be.

The writings of the new testament were made in accordance with the preexisting apostolic tradition that Paul mentions. And therefore they are fully discernable only to those in that same vein.
For even in the reading of Moses, a veil of ignorance to this day is over them which do not read them in the faith of Christ.

You guys are all just heretics because Catholicism is the true religion

And if Catholicism was wrong Mormonism would be true

Stay mad

>>18082441
>Scripture is just one part of the apostolic tradition
Scripture is not tradition. Scripture is the very word of God, He spoke it, to His people, for His purposes. It is delivered to us through His providence; He has used many men as means to bring His word to every generation, but He was dependent on none of them. There is no power in heaven or on earth or under the earth which can frustrate the will of God.
>If tradition is corruptible, then so is scripture.
1. This is a non sequitur 2. My argument is not that you should believe tradition is corruptible, but that you must. If you are Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, either one, then *you* right now believe tradition is corruptible because you believe the other one possesses a corrupted form of tradition. That which is can be. And if the other side can corrupt tradition, why can't yours? If you say God can prevent it, how can you prove your tradition is authentic and the other is corrupt? I stand on the word.
>The writings of the new testament were made in accordance with the preexisting apostolic tradition that Paul mentions. And therefore they are fully discernable only to those in that same vein
Which apostolic tradition? Apostolic tradition according to whom?

>>18082398 (OP)
Scripture is the final authority and where tradition conflicts with Scripture tradition is wrong. Any church that doesn't subordinate tradition to Scripture is false.

>>18082441
>Scripture is just one part of the apostolic tradition, it's in no ways separate from it.
Catholics can't even name the Apostle that ONE (1) "tradition" not found in the Bible comes from. "Tradition" means "something someone made up down the line that I like".

>>18082477
Cathodox don't compute that Protestants/Baptists don't hate all traditions for no reason. We still celebrate Easter/Christmas for one thing. We admit it's a tradition, but a GOOD one that DOESNT CONTRADICT THE BIBLE.
Obviously also Baptism and the Lord's Supper... though Cathodox may criticize these ordinances the way we do them for some inane reason.

>>18082491
It's worse than that, tradition is whatever they happen to be doing at the time. No degree of historicity is necessary, it's an excuse for innovation, not a source of doctrine and practice.

>>18082398 (OP)
Tradition cannot be corrupted if it is guided by the Holy Spirit
Also, Saint John Chrysostom debunked Sola Scriptura
Homily on Eutropius 6, Homilies on Matthew 13.1, 49 (paraphrased)
>You dare to seize the scripture while you stand outside the church. You are no different from the devil who quoted them to tempt the lord. You tear the words of God from the body of Christ and twist them to your own ruin. You make the gospel a sword against the gospel and set Christ’s house in flames with your private opinions. Such men are worse than unbelievers for they speak in Christ’s name while they war against his bride. Flee from your own inventions, abandon your lawless interpretations and bow before the judgment of the church.
Protestants BTFO.

>>18082497
I should clarify... the manner in which we perform the ordinances is informed by tradition, but the ordinances themselves are instituted in the Bible itself.

>>18082497
>We still celebrate Easter/Christmas for one thing
Well, some of us don't.
>We admit it's a tradition, but a GOOD one that DOESNT CONTRADICT THE BIBLE.
In worship, it is not sufficient for a practice to not contradict scripture, it must also be established by it. See Leviticus 10:1-3. Worship must be as God desires, and not as we desire. So holidays ought not be observed; there is no holiday in the new covenant except the Lord's Day.

>>18082500
>Tradition cannot be corrupted if it is guided by the Holy Spirit
So how did the other side corrupt tradition? How do you know they are the ones who corrupted it, and not the ones who protected it through the Holy Spirit?

I still don't know what Baptist is. You guys are like Amish with technology right?

>>18082466
>Scripture is not tradition.
It is, handed down to this generation of the church by the apostles and those they personally charged with the task along with the rest of their tradition.

>you believe the other one possesses a corrupted form of tradition
Someone claiming their error is tradition does not make it so.
Tradition, which includes scripture as correctly taught by Paul, is not corruptible.

If you teach the inerrancy of scripture, which is simply the writings of faith in letters on a page, how much more should you teach the inerrancy of tradition and the law written in the heart.

You simply do not respect tradition, and affirm the heresy of sola scriptura (which most ironically is not scriptural) only because your leaders were never granted binding and loosing authority by the true church through the laying of hands in the apostolic line. Which ordination is supported not only scripturally, but in the communion of saints and the entire testimony of the church fathers.
Because of this, you seek to elevate the written word over living men, that you may illegitimately claim their rightful authority invested in them by Christ himself as your own. Falsely, I will add.

The letter of the law is death, it is the spirit that gives life.

>Apostolic tradition according to whom?
Many. Including Paul himself, who bade his audience to respect the tradition of the apostles whether it be written or given through word of mouth.

>>18082497
>though Cathodox may criticize these ordinances the way we do them for some inane reason.
You don't believe Baptism remits sins. Protestants aren't even Nicene Christians.

>>18082525
Baptists are the only Christian denomination that's actually in the Bible. See john 3

>>18082504
>the ordinances themselves are instituted in the Bible itself

This is a misnomer.
The bible didn't institute anything, it's just a pile of papers with symbols written on them.
It was written as a *witness* to something that was instituted by a man, Jesus Christ, and given to other men to keep, his apostles.

This entire thread can be summed up as prot coping and seething

>>18082509
>it must also be established by it

Proper worship in the days of Moses was not established by a book.
The book serves as a subsequent witness to it's establishment.

> is no holiday in the new covenant
Pentecost.
Your error is radical elimination. You would pretend Jesus never taught anything that isn't written down in the bible, but this is to treat Jesus as if he's a fictional character in a novel with to real presence outside the book.

This is not in accordance with the end of John, which reads that if all the deeds of Jesus were written then the books would cover the face of the earth.

>>18082532
>It is, handed down to this generation of the church by the apostles and those they personally charged with the task along with the rest of their tradition.
I could not reply to this without simply repeating myself verbatim.
>Someone claiming their error is tradition does not make it so.
And so your errors are not tradition simply because you say so. Would they not the very same thing about you? How do you distinguish between authentic tradition and corrupt tradition? And how do you do so without putting all that is called tradition to the test?
>If you teach the inerrancy of scripture, which is simply the writings of faith in letters on a page, how much more should you teach the inerrancy of tradition
Tradition cannot be inerrant. 1. It is not the very word of God, so as to be infallible 2. It has no verbal content so as to be true or false, indeed, it has no content at all as it is an excuse which is thrown out to justify a human innovation, and not a deposit of teachings which one may reference to derive a system
>You simply do not respect tradition, and affirm the heresy of sola scriptura
I do not respect traditions of men and do not make them equal with the commandments of God, I admit it.
>because your leaders were never granted binding and loosing authority by the true church through the laying of hands in the apostolic line
1. Our churches came out of the church of Rome, our reformers were ordained as priests in that church. How is it you say they were not ordained in the apostolic line? Is Rome not in the apostolic line? You cannot deny our apostolic succession without denying Rome's. 2. The power of the keys is the power of preaching the gospel and administering church discipline. This belongs to each and every minister, and as was just established the call of the reformers cannot be disputed.

(cont.)

>>18082532
>Because of this, you seek to elevate the written word over living men
The written word in question is the written word of God, so the objection seems to be "you place God above mere men" to which I say amen, and charge with blasphemy any who does not join me.
>Many. Including Paul himself, who bade his audience to respect the tradition of the apostles whether it be written or given through word of mouth.
1. It is a fascinating way you have openly fled from the question, which speaks more than an answer would have 2. Paul did not refer to any later innovation when he called us to tradition, so ecclesiatical hierarchy, images in the churches, invocation of the dead etc etc. cannot be established from this text 3. That which Paul names tradition is identified in content to that which is written, as is clear from the context. He exhorts the Thessalonians to hold fast to the teachings he has just addressed, the eschatological teaching which some were contradicting, whether they first heard of it when he was with them in person or in that epistle 4. This scripture was, obviously, written during the apostolic age. So it was possible for men to hear teaching from the apostle's mouths (which is all he means), for us it is not. Our only source of apostolic truth is the New Testament.

>>18082466
>Scripture is not tradition. Scripture is the very word of God

The word of God was made flesh and dwells in the hearts of faithful men, not into letters printed on paper to sit on your bookshelf. Man is made in the image of God, not inanimate books.

If what you say is true, and you never received true scripture in the tradition of apostolic transmission, then you have received a false gospel that has no legitimate connection to Jesus' life and his chosen messengers.

>>18082553
>Proper worship in the days of Moses was not established by a book.
In the days of Moses the canon was open. God was still giving new revelations to Moses and subsequent prophets. It is not so with us, our only source of divine revelation is scripture. Even before the closure of the canon, it was forbidden to worship God in a manner other than He had instituted in revelation, which is what this text attests to.
>Pentecost.
If it were a holiday we would be required to observe it with particular rites at a particular time of the calendar, of which the New Testament knows nothing. To say "this holiday was inspired by this or that biblical-historical event" is not the same thing as it being biblically established.
>You would pretend Jesus never taught anything that isn't written down in the bible
We possess no revelation other than what is written down in the bible, the bible recognizes no holidays, therefore we are not to observe holidays. It is unauthorized worship.
>if all the deeds of Jesus were written then the books would cover the face of the earth.
This is irrelevant.

>>18082575
This is an equivocation fallacy used to openly deny biblical inspiration. If you do not believe the bible is the word of God, you are an opponent of the Christian religion. You make the word of God of no effect by your traditions of men.

>>18082565
>I could not reply to this without simply repeating myself verbatim

That is because a lie is most effective when repeated.
The apostles wrote scripture, and it was according to their tradition.

But not all apostles wrote things down.
That does not make them any less authoritative, because Christ gives them authority regardless of whether or not their teachings were recorded by themselves or others.

>your errors are not tradition
Which error?

> do you distinguish between authentic tradition and corrupt tradition
tradition is not corruptible, because scripture is not corruptible, and scripture is part of tradition
you lack discernment

>not a deposit of teachings
right teaching is part of the deposit of faith

>I do not respect traditions of men
And yet you affirm sola scriptura, which is unbiblical and a modernist so-called tradition.

>our reformers were ordained as priests in that church. How is it you say they were not ordained in the apostolic line
consecrated *priests* as are not authorized to form new parishes, or to ordain new priests themselves
the fact that you think Catholics consider priests and bishops to have the same authority and powers makes me think you truly cannot comprehend ordination as known to the antenicene church

Arius was a priest too, just like Luther; does that give him the same authority as the conclave of bishops that authoritatively excommunicated him? No.

they may administer the sacraments, prescribe penance in confession, etc, but the formation of new ecclesiastical jurisdictions is reserved for the bishop

>>18082614
>That is because a lie is most effective when repeated.
he didn't repeat it though.
are you retarded?

>>18082614
>That is because a lie is most effective when repeated.
No, it is because you did not interact with what I said. My point is untouched. You spoke noise, not substance.
>That does not make them any less authoritative
That your human traditions are innovations which could not be traced back to the apostles indeed makes them less authoritative. They are not of divine revelation, so their authority is none at all.
>Which error?
I don't know, you've carefully disguised which club you're in probably to avoid the problem of the contradictions between them and create an illusion of unity. Does God the Spirit proceed from the Son, or the Father only?
>tradition is not corruptible
And yet you believe the other club's traditions are corrupt. So, please tell me and stop hiding, how can I distinguish true tradition from false tradition?
>And yet you affirm sola scriptura, which is unbiblical and a modernist so-called tradition.
This is empty rhetoric, you just vomited your feelings at me. We are substantiating how empty your flailing is.
>you think Catholics consider priests and bishops
It is irrelevant what the church of Rome considers, the hierarchy of bishops, priests etc. is an invention of men's brains not to be found in the word of God. God established the offices of elder and deacon and no other, these alone are valid offices. The reformers were validly ordained ministers, by validly ordained ministers, and as ministers had the full authority of the Church.

>>18082568
>Paul did not refer to any later innovation when he called us to tradition, so ecclesiatical hierarchy

Stop right there.
The early church is not a democracy.
Paul speaks of specifically individuals he personally appointed to leadership positions.

>you place God above mere men" to which I say amen
Jesus Christ is consubstantial with the Father, is fully man and God. Because of this, men may aspire to be more perfect even as the Father is perfect. To overcome their weakness through his body.

>Paul names tradition is identified in content to that which is written, as is clear from the context

No, he compares his writings to and identifies them with the apostolic tradition that already existed. Saying they carry as much weight as that tradition which came down by word of mouth before his writings ever occurred.

>it was possible for men to hear teaching from the apostle's mouths (which is all he means), for us it is not.
Only if you deny the life of the saints. Which life is in Christ Jesus, for he lives, and he lives in the hearts of his faithful so that they may live in him. To this very day.

It is because you have no knowledge or care of and for this doctrine, the communion of saints in the living body of Christ, that I can detect you have none of their true tradition in you.

You think the saints are dead. If you do not eat the flesh of Christ, or drink his blood, there is no life in you. Not the symbol of his flesh, or the letter of the law which is death, but discerning the real presence of the body of Christ in the Eucharist.

Without such discernment of the flesh, eating and drinking damnation.

27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

>>18082652
>The early church is not a democracy. Paul speaks of specifically individuals he personally appointed to leadership positions.
I cannot apprehend what relevance this has. I take it to be a gross misunderstanding of Protestantism as if we were a bunch of Anabaptist anarchists screeching our own "revelations" at each other. There is validly ordained authority in the Church, but it does not have authority over the word of God.
>No, he compares his writings to and identifies them with the apostolic tradition that already existed. Saying they carry as much weight as that tradition which came down by word of mouth before his writings ever occurred.
You don't seem to be getting anywhere by ignoring my arguments and talking to yourself. You can interpret what is by word to be different than what is by letter, but, again, only if you read it out of context. You are free to interpret scripture out of context, but only if you are not interested in what it actually means. Begin reading the epistle from verse 1 of chapter 1.
>Only if you deny the life of the saints.
All this incoherent babbling that follows does not demand a reply.

>>18082650
>yet you believe the other club's traditions are corrupt
You say I believe this, because it's a strawman you need to employ to make divisions.

I was taught to mark those which make divisions, because they are the enemy.

17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.


>empty rhetoric
empty rhetoric
sola scriptura is not in scripture, it is a doctrine of men
you have nothing but mental gymnastics to employ which could impute the presence of this false doctrine in scripture, when the plain words of scripture itself contradict the lie

>God established the offices of elder and deacon and no other
If you had read 1 Corinthians 12, you would know this were not true. Because prophecy, correct teaching, healing, etc are all gifts of the Holy Spirit given to certain individuals in accordance with their role or office in the church. They are not given to all. Holy orders are not restricted to two offices.

>The reformers were validly ordained ministers, by validly ordained ministers, and as ministers had the full authority of the Church.
That is simply not true.

>>18082680
>if we were a bunch of Anabaptist anarchists
If only, at least then you would have some fruit.

>There is validly ordained authority in the Church, but it does not have authority over the word of God.
It is not the writings of an apostle that gives an apostle authority, it is the authority of an apostle that gives his writings the same authority.

This authority was not established by a book. The book is a witness. The investment of authority in the apostles and their successors comes from Jesus.

>incoherent babbling that follows
My words make perfect sense, you spiteful heretic. The life of the saints is eternal, because Christ's life is eternal, and Christ's life is in them.

>>18082398 (OP)
>The Romanists and Greeks CANNOT deny that tradition can become corrupt.
You seem to think they are capable of thinking.
>When tradition contradicts itself, who can say who is right?
People who don't care about truth, righteousness, or Jesus.
>There is no other standard but the word of God in holy scripture, which can burn away human innovations, errors and abuses from the sacred tradition.
100%. That is why King James Onlyism is so important.

>>18082441
>Scripture serves tradition.
Repeating it over and over again doesn't make it true. It just makes those flames hotter. Tick tock.

>>18082686
>You say I believe this, because it's a strawman you need to employ to make divisions.
No, I say you believe this because it is absolutely logically necessary. The only alternative is to believe contradictions. So I ask again, is the filioque true or not? Is it apostolic and sacred tradition, or corruption, error, and heresy?
>sola scriptura is not in scripture, it is a doctrine of men
This is more empty rhetoric and womanly seething. I am inclined to treat it with contempt, but for the sake of the weak I respond 1. Sola scriptura is an artifact of divine revelation. It does not need to be explicitly taught in the bible, because the mere existence of the bible supports it. If God speaks, He is absolutely to be believed, even against all worldly authorities 2. Sola scriptura *is* taught in scripture. See 2 Timothy 3:16-17
>Because prophecy, correct teaching, healing, etc are all gifts of the Holy Spirit given to certain individuals in accordance with their role or office in the church.
That these gifts were given according to (or even with regard to) office is not stated, you corrupt scripture like the devil. The New Testament knows nothing of your hierarchy because it was invented by men gradually after the apostles' deaths. In the pastoral epistles (the very purpose of which is to regulate church offices) exactly two offices are recognized, and qualifications stated only for them.
>That is simply not true.
Yes it is.

>>18082693
>It is not the writings of an apostle that gives an apostle authority, it is the authority of an apostle that gives his writings the same authority.
1. Not at all, the authority which is derived to the apostolic writings is derived from God Himself who speaks them. I cannot say what your religion is based on, but the Christian religion is founded on the words of the living God. 2. Your bishops emphatically are not apostles and can claim none of this. To the extent they have any authority it is only as ministers of the word and sacrament.

>>18082404
Delicious.

>>18082497
Well said, as usual.
>>18082534
You're a walking corpse. Have fun burning.

>>18082725
>filioque
Is Jesus consubstantial with the Father?
Did the council of Florence agree on the filioque?
Yes.

>does not need to be explicitly taught in the bible
It is not explicitly taught anywhere in the bible in fact. If this doctrine were so true to correct understanding of scripture, then it would be written therein.

The indisputable fact that it is not, therefore indicates that acceptance of this doctrine is superfluous at best, and at worst is used to subvert legitimate apostolic authority
It is precisely because the false doctrine of sola scriptura is nowhere found in scripture itself that we know know it's false.

The writings canonized in the New Testament have this apostolic authority because they were written by apostles. These apostles had the authority Jesus have them regardless of whether not they wrote anything, and this authority was passed to their chosen through the laying of hands.

You say that God doesn't "need" the apostles. Maybe you're right, strictly speaking, the the apostles are those he chose to give his authority to. And they in turn passed along this charge to their own chosen men.

To say that scripture alone is God breathed, therefore scripture alone is authoritative, is to miss the entire point of inspiration.
God breathed into Adam, and made him a living soul. And through this breath, the scriptures were written as *another* witness to man's making in the image of God.

Again, as John wrote, the books that could be written on Jesus' deeds would fill the earth. That is to say, the written word alone is not sufficient to establish religion pleasing to God.
There must be a living connection, a life line, one that the written word as the letter of law (which letter is death) as simply a series of glyphs on paper cannot provide alone by it's mere reading. For even a heathen or profligate can read the words of a page, and yet be faithless and dissolute.

Scripture is part of the apostolic tradition, and not the only part.

>>18082738
The word of the living God is not restricted exclusively to the the pages of an inanimate book.

If it were, he would be a fictional character, existent only on the page and not truly alive at all.

>>18082778
You belong to the time-honored tradition of going straight to the burn pit when you take your last worthless breath. So epic! The girls must be fawning over how deep and "spiritual" you are. Faggot.

>>18082791
You only pretend to be Christian on the internet in an attempt to sow division and fulment flamewars between Christians.

Why not simply admit it? It would be gratifying and virtuous to confess.
Moreover, your deep ignorance of the Christian religion has already exposed you.

>>18082803
>You only pretend to be Christian on the internet in an attempt to sow division and fulment flamewars between Christians.
Not at all, as evidenced by the fact I don't attack fellow Christians e.g. Solitaire.
>Why not simply admit it?
Because it's not true.
>It would be gratifying and virtuous to confess.
You are the one who finds gratification in lies, not me.
>Moreover, your deep ignorance of the Christian religion has already exposed you.
You should kill yourself.

>>18082815
Thank you for admitting you are not a real Christian, even if you're too much of a coward to say it openly.

>>18082821
>Thank you for admitting
Touched a nerve, didn't I, LARPer? Remember, God hates you. Enjoy Hell.

>>18082466
The plethora of failed Gospels written by the most devout people of their times and places makes it obvious how the idea of inerrancy in scripture is foolish.
The Gospel of Luke starts with an acknowledgement that there are many other lost synoptic Gospels and that the writer just believed that he could tell it a bit better than others. Not that he was divinely inspired, that he did more research than others and was better as a documentarian than the others.
No Gospel claims inerrancy, even. Paul doesn't, either.

True Christian doctrine being present on the internet triggers shills so much they will dedicate many hours to LARPing as so-called Christians just to sow confusion, cynicism, and ridicule just to lower the standard of public dialogue by even a fraction of one percent.

>>18082862
True. That's why you need to compare doctrine from any source against the King James Bible.

Why is online Orthodoxy so uniquely toxic? I mean, there's a few tradcath groups that get pretty heated, but they can't hold a candle to the sheer rage an impiety of the average Ortho.

>>18082441
>Scripture serves tradition
Tradition is allowed to exist so long as it does not conflict with Scripture. Scripture is not the subordinate in the relationship.

>>18082525
Baptists are what you get when you let loose a bunch of religiously illiterate hicks into the woods and let them fuck each other for a few generations and then give them access to a pulpit to preach from.
It is a very degraded and inarticulate form of Christianity that is entirely reliant on magical thinking and manifesting to achieve its theological 'goals'.

>>18083390
repent sinner

>>18083390
>Nothing but ad hominems.
You know, to most people this just makes you look like you're throwing a tantrum.

>>18083390
Ok so I was right. The Amish with technology. Lol

>>18083487
Worse.
The Amish tend to be community minded and clannish, Baptists love churning out hick Gordon Gekkos that love to everyone else off as much as possible and believe that the secret 11th Commandment was to get as rich as possible.

>>18083544
*love to rip everyone else off...

>>18082398 (OP)
Btw the Romanists and Greeks you are referring to are the poor Jewish man's Romans and Greeks who can create something of value only by opposing each other.

>>18082509
>So holidays ought not be observed;
See Romans 14.

>>18082862
There are demonic forces that actively hate God's word. Especially when it is quoted in context and from an uncorrupt source like the KJV.

Their whole purpose seems to be trying to contradict for the sheer sake of it, to provoke anger, or to say literally anything that they think will spread doubt and confusion about Christianity, the integrity of the Bible, or one of the doctrines of the Bible.

They will pretend to be confused about things that are obviously true and will choose to aggressively misunderstand obvious facts, which I'm guessing they do in the hope of gaslighting others and possibly themselves even. You'll see them parroting obvious lies from time to time on here, claiming the Bible says something it never does, or that it never talks about something that it actually talks extensively about.

Each time they repeat one of these lies, they just hope that nobody will call them out on it. Their strategy isn't any deeper than that.

>>18083773
>paragraph
>if you dont believe my heresy you are satan