Prof Tiger & Sardis "All Things Considered" Theology Hut

[bluetick]

The old religion thread at World Crashing did a pretty good trade. Not sure why it got left out during the transition.

[hedge]

Everyone lost their religion. Free at last!

[sardis]

Prof, you apostate!!

[bluetick]

lol

excellent

[Professor Tiger]

All things considered? I like that. How's this:

"This thread is brought to you by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. For a more just, verdant and peaceful message board."

[Professor Tiger]

Prof, you apostate!!

[hedge]

Ah, christian fight. This is really taking me back. To, like, the 16th century...

[sardis]

Someone get Prof's flagrum...

[Professor Tiger]

Ah, christian fight. This is really taking me back. To, like, the 16th century...

The 16th century? Pshaw. That was the day before yesterday in Orthodoxy. We have been around 15.7 centuries before that.

But to Protestants like Sardis, the 16th century is where their timeline begins. They're newbies.

[AlabamAlum]

15.7 before the 16th century? What date do you claim as the 'established in' date? 33 AD?

[Professor Tiger]

Thereabouts.

If you desire documentation, I recommend The Didache, the letters of Clement of Rome, and Ignatius of Antioch, for starters. All are late first/early second century. Their writings regarding the Eucharist, baptism and Church government are distinctly more Orthodox/historical Catholic than Protestant/evangelical.

[sardis]

My Pelagian friend hijacks the the first four centuries of Christianity; whereas, Catholicism's beginnings are around the fourth century when it whored itself to the state and a random bishop declared himself pope.

[Professor Tiger]

Okay, where in the first 16 centuries of Christian writings can you point to anything that resembles the unique foundations of the Reformation, like sola fidei, sola Scriptura, anti-sacramentalism, congregationalism?

At least your Pelagian friend (like your Arian or Gnostic friends) have some root in history before the 16th century.

[Professor Tiger]

Catholicism's beginnings are around the fourth century when it whored itself to the state and a random bishop declared himself pope.

That whore of a Church got martyred, by the tens of thousands, by the state, up until 313 AD.

And that whore of a Church also gave you your Bible in the 4th-5th century. If they were so God-inspired to correctly define the Canon of the Bible, a decision which you completely accept to this day, then why do you believe were they so apostate in everything else?

And that bishop was not randomly selected. Jesus picked out Peter, not them. It's in the Bible. If you don't like that choice, perhaps you should address your objections to Jesus.

[sardis]

Okay, where in the first 16 centuries of Christian writings can you point to anything that resembles the unique foundations of the Reformation, like sola fidei, sola Scriptura, anti-sacramentalism, congregationalism?

At least your Pelagian friend (like your Arian or Gnostic friends) have some root in history before the 16th century.

You threw out quite a few issues to respond with one post. The first two can be shown in New Testament, I am not sure anti-sacramentalism is an issue since both Protestantism and Catholicism have sacraments. Since Congregationalist is not specifically clear in scripture, tell me if these quotes from Clement and the Didache are accurate.

"Our apostles likewise knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife over the bishop’s office. For this reason, therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the officials mentioned earlier and afterwards they gave the offices a permanent character; that is, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry. Those, therefore, who were appointed by them or later on by other reputable men with the consent of the whole church … .” (Letter to the Corinthians, 44)."

“You must, then, elect (Χειροτονήσατε) for yourselves bishops and deacons who are a credit to the Lord, men who are gentle, generous, faithful, and well tried. For their ministry to you is identical with that of the prophets and teachers. You must not, therefore, despise them, for along with the prophets and teachers they enjoy a place of honor among you.”

[sardis]

Catholicism's beginnings are around the fourth century when it whored itself to the state and a random bishop declared himself pope.

That whore of a Church got martyred, by the tens of thousands, by the state, up until 313 AD.

And that whore of a Church also gave you your Bible in the 4th-5th century. If they were so God-inspired to correctly define the Canon of the Bible, a decision which you completely accept to this day, then why do you believe were they so apostate in everything else?

And that bishop was not randomly selected. Jesus picked out Peter, not them. It's in the Bible. If you don't like that choice, perhaps you should address your objections to Jesus.

Again, that was pre Catholic. There was no pope, no organized world structure until late 4 th century. Christ ordained Peter as the impetus for the early church. I don't see any mention of successors to Peter. And certainly Peter did not see himself as the infallible political head of the church.

[Professor Tiger]

I am not sure anti-sacramentalism is an issue since both Protestantism and Catholicism have sacraments.

It's true that Lutheran and Episcopalian Protestants, (and a few Presbyterians) have long used that term "sacrament." But I grew up in the staunchest of evangelical homes, and never heard the word "sacrament" used except in derision. But if evangelicals now want to start using that term, they are certainly welcome to borrow it. But it is important to clarify what we both mean by that term; when Orthodox/traditional Catholics refer to sacraments, we are referring to actual, real conduits of supernatural grace. We are not referring to mere symbols. That's a big difference. And the descriptions of "sacraments" in Didache, Clement et al all fit the Orthodox/traditional Catholic definition.

"Our apostles likewise knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife over the bishop’s office."

Again, Lutherans and Episcopalians use the term "bishop," but in the evangelicalism I grew up with, there was no such thing as a bishop. (Even though it was right there in the King James Bible.) I note T.D. Jakes has made that term respectable in evangelical circles. But again, it's important to note difference of meanings. In the ancient Church, you couldn't just call yourself a bishop and set up shop. Even Paul had to go get his apostolic authorization from Peter. And in the early Church, to become a bishop, you had to be consecrated by three other bishops all in a succession back to an apostle and in communion with every other bishop in the Church. There is nothing remotely like this Protestantism except with the Episcopalians and, VERY recently, the Lutherans.

[Professor Tiger]

There was no pope, no organized world structure until late 4 th century.

Incorrect. The Church was governed by bishops. They are all mentioned in the New Testament, and these offices never went away. Read the letter of Clement. He was the bishop of Rome exercising authority over the Church at Corinth, just like Paul did only a few years before. Read the letters of Ignatius of Antioch and count how many times he instructs, "Done nothing without the bishop." There were bishops everywhere constantly between the first and fourth centuries. The extant evidence is overwhelming.

[hedge]

"The 16th century? Pshaw. That was the day before yesterday in Orthodoxy. We have been around 15.7 centuries before that.

But to Protestants like Sardis, the 16th century is where their timeline begins. They're newbies."

Yeah, the intra-christian slapfighting b/w catholics and protestants is what I was referring to, a tradition you two seem to enjoy proudly carrying on. Of course, millions of innocent people won't suffer and die b/c of your inane squabbling in here like in centuries past (ah, the glad tidings of christianity never fail to impress, in any of it's foul incarnations), but it's nice to see the love and forgiveness all of you so ostensibly claim to believe in carried out in doctrinaire, pedantic arguments about absurdities (see your latest defense of transubstantiation, a "concept" I can't believe any sentient human could really claim as possible What next, angles on a pin?

[hedge]

"Christ ordained Peter as the impetus for the early church. I don't see any mention of successors to Peter."

Wasn't Peter crucified, like many of those other jews? I'd pay good money to see the pope and cardinals crucified in Vatican square. That would be hilarious...