re: Christians who somehow thought it wasn’t Christianlike to vote for Trump

Donald Trump is the anti-Christ. Worship your false prophets. boys.

quote:

---

That Synod rejected the teachings of the Protestant Reformation. Are you saying that the EOC hasn’t formally and ecumenically rejected those doctrines?

---

All that synod did was reaffirm what the church has always believed. The bishop just used reformed language to do it because of the widespread adoption of calvinism in the area where his jurisdiction was. It wasn't a binding dogmatic synod, but most Orthodox today would agree with the decrees.

A third example of the Folly of Foo that I'd like to point out.

For over a decade and at least dozens of times, Foo has with absolute certainty proclaimed here on Political Talk that the writings, beliefs and thoughts of the Church Fathers support Foo's Protestant theological doctrines and beliefs.

In fact, what Foo proclaims is objectively false. The Early Church Fathers are very consistent and clear with regard to some of the core doctrines of the RCC and Eastern Orthodox Church. The Early Church Fathers proclaimed doctrines consistent with RCC and EOC on core theological points such as The Eucharist and Baptism. Any honest and thorough analysis of the Early Church Fathers would never reach the conclusion that they were Protestant in thought.

Just as a point of historical reference, the Early Church Fathers existed and wrote hundreds of years before the RCC and EOC separated from one another's administrative organization. On these main points: Eucharist and Baptism, the RCC and EOC agree even to this day, and I would invite an EOC observer to correct me on this if I'm wrong. I don't think I am.

But I would just like to express my opinion that it is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest to insist that The Early Church Fathers promoted Protestantant or Reformed theological thinking when their thinking was clearly aligned with RCC and EOC thinking.

quote:

---

And each time, those errors were handled by bishops and councils and the Church remained as 1

---

By the time of the Reformation, the EOC had already split (or the RCC, depending on if you're RCC or EOC), and the RCC was dominant in the West. Centuries of error stacked upon error were coming to the forefront with abuses being highlighted, especially around indulgences and purchasing of salvation, or rather, purchasing reprieve from suffering in Purgatory. This one practice sparked a review of all of the abuses and errors that had crept in.

The Church of Christ is still one Church, however she doesn't have one singular organizational structure. Christ is still the head of the Church, even if she has more or less purity.

quote:

---

Mormons do this, too. Quote mining church fathers doesn't mean you're in line with their views.

---

The RCC and EOC does this too. Everyone does. The only difference is who is saying that the patristics agree with them. The RCC, for example, often times takes their developed and even created doctrines and dogmas and forces them back upon the ECFs by changing the meanings of the words that were used. For instance the ECFs used the word "Scripture" more broadly, referring to both those writings which were authoritative and those which were helpful (but categorically different). When modern RCCs look at the word "Scripture" being used by the patristics for deuterocanonical book, they assume they meant the same exact thing the modern RCCs mean by that, and then claim that those patristics were in their camp over and against Protestants or others.

quote:

---

It really doesn't matter what they thought if the reality after 500 years is that they did, in fact, create hundreds of new sects of Christianity.

---

quote:

---

If everyone that existed before and during the founding of the reformation disagreed with its teachings, that should be a good sign that there might be a problem.

---

Can you elaborate by what you mean here?

quote:

---

Foo, man, I'm not going to lie. You said you've been reading the church fathers for almost a decade, yet your understanding of what they say and of church history is the most revisionist tripe I've ever seen from an adult. It's like you haven't actually read what the fathers said, but rely solely on reformed interpretations of certain quotes. If you actually read the church fathers, it would quickly be obvious that they don't teach anything like what reformation theology teaches, that the RCC has never taught justification by faith alone, and that Sts John Chrysostom and Augustine never taught or believed in Sola Scriptura.

---

I've actually read much of the actual source material of the ECFs over the years (in English, that is). Augustine, like many of the patristics, actually changed or clarified his views over time, as evidenced by his evolving writings.

And no, I don't think any particular patristic or even the patristics as a group supported the Reformed views as stated during the Reformation, and I wouldn't expect them to. The Reformation was a clarifying era in the Church, just like when Councils met previously to clarify the official understanding of the Church in the face of error. Men like Origen made great contributons to the Faith, but also had a lot of bad, immature, or even seemingly contradictory theology. And yet, the seeds of those Reformation doctrines (which go back to the Scriptures, which I must remind you of) are found all throughout their writings.

One thing I've found in studying the ECFs is that they aren't "Protestant", but they aren't "Catholic" or "Orthodox", either. They have no singular voice and their opinions and teachings varied in a lot of ways. Church history is messy, which is why one of the cries of the Reformation was ad fontes ([back] to the source: Scripture).

quote:

---

In each one of these threads, the only time something is "true" or "biblical" in your eye is if it is in line with whatever Calvin and the reformation teaches.

---

Obviously I believe that what I believe is true, or else I wouldn't believe it. That's a universal truth: no one believes as true what they believe is false; that would be a contradiction.

One thing I think I've been clear to communicate, though, is that there can be a lot of differences of beliefs so long as the core truths are maintained. I can shake the hand or embrace with a hug and a kiss an Arminian Baptist, or a Lutheran, or an Anglican/Episcopalian, or a Methodist, or Pentecostal, as long as they can assent to the ancient creeds (e.g., Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian) and can affirm the solas of the Reformation, as these summarize the basics of the Christian faith. We can have a lot of differences on the sacraments, ecclesiology, the sign-gifts, and so on, so long as who God is and how we are saved is still correct.

I can have great disagreements with a brother in Christ and still call him "brother". The RCC and EOC both assert that to knowingly and willingly be outside of their respective churches means that you are outside of salvation. I don't go so far.

quote:

---

You said yourself that EO and RCC cannot be the true vine because they reject reformed teachings, yet you fail time and time again to show why reformed theology is true outside of some vague "well, I believe..." followed by a wall of isolated verses from Scripture.

---

That's not true at all. I make broad statements based on the conversation at hand, but I have no problem defending my positions. I've done so already in this thread regarding even the gospel being faith alone rather than faith and works. I didn't just provide a wall of Scripture, but supported my positions. I've done that consistently with my time here on this forum. If you would like to have a debate here about a particular doctrine, I'd be happy to explain my position in as much detail as you'd like.

The most shorthand description of reformed theology is biblical theology. I say that because it came in contrast to the RCC, which provided the Church's infallible witness to that of the Bible as an absolute authority that binds the consciences of Christians. During the Reformation, those conscience-binding authorities were reduced to one: Scripture alone.

quote:

---

It's obvious that above everything else, you idolize Calvin.

---

It might be obvious to you, but it's not obvious to me, and I'm the one you're talking about. I certainly don't "idolize" Calvin. I respect him, but don't agree with everything he wrote. I respect Luther, but don't agree with everything he wrote. The same can be said for all of the Reformers, and the Puritans, as well. R.C. Sproul is one of my modern-day heros of the faith, but I didn't agree with everything he said or believed, either, and I'm OK with that. Just because I believe differently doesn't mean I think I think my theology is perfect. I disagree with many people, but I recognize that the fault could be mind, and that the Lord will mature me and change my thinking over time.

I believe the Reformation brought the Scriptures back to the forefront of Christianity. It resulted in more biblical literacy and a love for God's word that had not existed prior. It resulted in the freedom of the conscience, not to be bound by the traditions of men, but always to be held captive by the word of God alone. It resulted in the proclamation of the gospel for the sake of the gospel, not mere association with the Church. It brought clarity out of darkness, and I'm thankful to the Lord for the work He did through fallible and imperfect men like John Calvin and Martin Luther, but I do not idolize them. Jesus Christ is my God, not John Calvin.

quote:

---

False churches…imagine the self-righteous gaul to call the Orthodox Church a “false church”.

---

In the book of Revelation, we read that there is a warning given to the church in Ephesus, that if they do not repent and reform their ways, that God will remove their lampstand, which means that they will essentially be considered a false church and no longer part of Christ's Church.

If that warning was real, that means there are churches that can be cut off, just as Israel was, so that the Gentiles would be grafted in.

quote:

---

This is from someone who says he agreed with the Orthodox Church until it condemned his heretical belief system in the 1600s.

---

I didn't say "agreed", only that there comes a point where error becomes so great that a church is no longer a true branch of Christ's Church. The RCC did that with the Council of Trent in the 1500's.

quote:

---

In the book of Revelation, we read that there is a warning given to the church in Ephesus, that if they do not repent and reform their ways, that God will remove their lampstand, which means that they will essentially be considered a false church and no longer part of Christ's Church.

---

From reading your past screeds, you’re often lightly challenged and thus you must feel that alone is self-confirmatory for your HERETICAL delusions.

You post this crap above yet provide NO basis whatsoever to back up your claims the Eastern Orthodox Church is a “false church”.

Do better dude.

Trump would have absolutely HATED Jesus. If you think he put a mob on his own Christian Vice President like a degenerate when things didn’t go his way in 2020, imagine what he would think of a social justice warrior like Jesus. He would have scapegoated Jesus for everything wrong in the region from Bethlehem to Galilee and every one of you dry humpers know it. It’s who he is and what he does

Everyone is either saved or lost based on whether they have believed the gospel or not. All this back and forth about which church is right is pointless. The scriptures are clear. Jesus saves those who come to him and put their faith in him alone. Regardless of what denomination label they wear. Believe what you want but as Phil 1:6 says:

Being confident of this very thing, that he who began a good work in you(me) will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ.

That goes for anyone who has ever put their faith in Jesus.

I’m trying hard to understand the different view points here. It seems from the RCC and EOC posts, Scripture is Scripture because the Church says it is. In this view, it seems that the Church is at least equal in authority to Scripture if not greater.

In the Protestant/ reformed view, because Scripture is God breathed, there is nothing higher in authority, and we know Scripture is Scripture because it is self affirming (e.g., Peter’s writings affirm Paul’s writings as Scripture and vice versa; Jesus in the Gospel affirms OT authority; and Jesus’ authority is affirmed if we believe he is God “Truly truly I say to you…”))

In theory, I suppose the Protestants have a tough argument—they have to say Scripture is self affirming, and any response to a question asking how they know must be “because it says it is”.

That seems to logically follow because, as the highest level of authority, there’s nothing above it you can appeal to.

For RCC/ EOC, it seems that there is a similar issue. How do we know that the Church has authority to gatekeep the canon? (This is a legitimate question by me; please answer gently)

In practice, I’m not sure I understand why the hostility is so great—don’t the RCC and EOC affirm that each book of the Protestant Bible is canon? For Protestants, only a few books are left out from the RCC/ EOC list, but my understanding is that while there is some disagreement here (e.g., purgatory (but even RCC and EOC don’t agree on this issue)) most of the disagreement is within books that everyone already agrees is canon (e.g., Romans, James).

Based on this, I don’t understand why we care so much about how the 3 sides get to their canon if the discussion is solely within self proclaimed Christians.

For interpretation, don’t Christians rely on the Holy Spirit to reveal the truths of Scripture (John 16:13, 1Cor 2:12–14, Psalm 119:18)?

When I read the ECF (most recently regarding Nicea), they all seem to be relying on Scripture as the basis for the authority in their arguments.

Additionally, Aquinas talks about reason as a tool to interpret Scripture. He says that our reason is reliable because it participates in the Divine Intellect. Our ability to reason he says is an attribute that we share with God.

Given this, why can’t an individual, guided by the Spirit and reason trust his interpretations of the Bible? Obviously, people can make mistakes, but isn’t that why the Bible says to instruct each other gently and that man sharpens man? Ultimately, it seems that Scripture should be the yardstick for testing theology (2Tim 3:16–17).