In defense of Cruciform; Traditions of Men
- Thread starter Traditio
- Start date
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
I agree, there were only two rows of six loaves of bread in the temple.
genuineoriginal
New member
Because it's TOL and the moderation is self-professedly biased.
Actually, that wasn't even close.
genuineoriginal
New member
The "random guy" that lived 500 years ago was basing his readings off of the teachings of Augustine the heretic.
Augustine the heretic lived 1700 years ago, during the time when the Roman Catholic church was created by Constantine.
You mean not enough bread for communions or to feed?
I had no idea how dangerous cruciform is
he is still spamming his own thread
but
it has been reported by right divider
he is still spamming his own thread
but
it has been reported by right divider
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Trad,
This business about Augustine is not going to move the discussion forward. I provided a response to one of Cruciform's links to another wherein Augustine was appealed to, as did you, about how he would not have come to faith but for the church. Romanists have this tendency to read back into the statements of the Early Church Fathers (ECFs) a certain meaning that one wants to see, regardless of whether that perceived meaning can stand the test of historical examination and scrutiny. Further, in my wide-ranging rebuttal of numerous claims made that Protestants have no answer to Romanist one-liners about various topics I included adequate context and scrutiny to demonstrate that Augustine is not bowing to the existing church at Rome, but rather to the authority of the church as the means of the salvation of all persons from the preaching of the word of God. You argued for consideration of Augustine's other words elsewhere, and in my rejoinder I noted the contrary that supported my original postion. All of which is to say that getting into a "he said this here, but later he says this elsewhere" is not going to prevail in support of any position you may have.
Augustine Belongs to The Church Militant - Not Rome Alone
There was a point in history when Rome viewed Augustine’s theology as cardinal, only rejecting it, indeed anathematizing it, at Trent for semi-Pelagianism. The Reformed still cling to Augustine's view of regeneration. R.C. Sproul has written that the WCF is "thoroughly Augustinian". B. B. Warfield noted that the Reformation was a theological revival to recover Augustinianism. Sacramentally, both to baptism and to communion, Augustine was a Lutheran, definitely not a Romanist. One need not wonder why Luther was an Augustinian. Soteriologically, Augustine was as Calvinistic as the Apostle Paul. Rome strives mightily to claim Augustine as a great supporter of its views. Those having studied and read what Augustine wrote will agree that said support of Rome is very hard to come by. And as we see in this small discussion, when some of Augustine is put forth it is subject to interpretation; and some of what Augustine wrote is completely incompatible with Rome's views of the church authority. Neither Rome nor Protestantism owns Augustine; he belongs to the church.
Using the ECF Wisely
The ECF generally use but the language of the Scriptures upon the topics before us, while they scarcely make any statements which afford us materials for deciding in what precise sense they understood these topics. They rightly leave the matter very much where Scripture leaves it, and where, but for the rise of errors needing to be contradicted and opposed, it might still have been left. As long as Rome's apologists are able to speak in grandiose and general terms of the ECF for the claims of Rome, they are able to make it appear to others as though Rome's paradigm for ecclesiology is the answer to all ecclesiastical controversies. But once they try to offer specific examples, where such claims are represented by a particular case, their arguments are usually toppled by overt anachronistic readings of the ECF. Romanists do this very thing when they appeal to Augustine's use of "Rome" and "Church" to mean the Rome and its Church they now follow, all the while refusing to submit to the plain facts of history.
The Historical Rise of Romanism
For those who don't know much about church history personal research availing oneself of more than just Rome's own accounts of its history is in order in order to separate mythology from factuality and to discount Rome's claims of monolithicity. A good first step take would be to read First Clement. It's one of the earliest extra-Biblical Christian documents available, and it represents early Christianity in the city of Rome and is very relevant and contradictory to the claims about the early church, especially when Rome's apologists attempt to appeal to Rome as the bearer of its own historical foundations with the idea that the early particular church existing in Rome is that same church today.
The early days of the particular church in Rome was organized as a presbytery until the middle to later part of the second century. The prebytery consisted of a plurality of elders or presbyters, the latter term being synonymous with bishops. Roman Catholicism does not exist as such until the fourth century, at the earliest, really until Leo I (440-461). Episcopacy, yes, but not Roman Catholicism. It was Damasus I (reigned 366–84 AD), who first claimed the title pope (from the Latin, papa, “father”) for the bishop of Rome, and there was nothing remotely like the papacy as we know it until Gregory I (reigned 590–604), following the fall of the Empire in the West (476 AD). In fact, Gregory I was offended by the label universal pope, noting a word of proud address that I have forbidden….None of my predecessors ever wished to use this profane word ['universal']….But I say it confidently, because whoever calls himself ‘universal bishop’ or wishes to be so called, is in his self-exaltation Antichrist’s precursor, for in his swaggering he sets himself before the rest. Sadly history tells us that Gregory I, the last good pope (HT: Calvin), was ignored as Leo I and Galsius led the way to later bishops of Rome laying claim to this proud address.
By the ninth century Christendom was divided governmentally into five geographic regions, having heads in Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch. Over the years Rome had started claiming more and more power and authority. The papacy as we know it is a medieval creature. And the Romanist's claims to an unbroken succession tumbles upon the facts of history, especially those facts cropping up at Avignon, Pisa, and Rome for a century in the late medieval period. See also here. Years later at Reims in 1049, the Roman Church made it clear that the pope is pontifex universalis, assuming upon itself what Gregory claimed as identification of the one who in his self-exaltation [is] Antichrist’s precursor…. The papacy we see today really was not even present until Gregory VII (1073 AD).
The actual establishment of the political and ecclesiastical Rome owes its genesis to three popes: Hildebrand (1020-1085), Innocent III (1161-1216), and Boniface VIII (1235-1303). With Innocent III the papacy was cemented as a controller of church and state. His Fourth Lateran Council defined RCC's seven sacraments, required confession, and made the penitential treadmill necessary as the only way to salvation. Finally Boniface's Unam Sanctum made submission to the Pope necessary for salvation.
By the thirteenth century the true church was in the wilderness existing in part among some within the RCC and the Waldenses. Justification by faith alone, the divine way of forgiveness and salvation had yet to be officially denounced and condemned. Lastly, the church had yet to declare that Rome's interpretation of inspired Holy Writ was infallible and solely legitimate. So the true church was there, but, as noted, scattered in the wilderness wherein the elect did hear our Lord's voice above that of the false shepherds, much like the blind man heard Jesus as the Christ in John 9.
AMR
This business about Augustine is not going to move the discussion forward. I provided a response to one of Cruciform's links to another wherein Augustine was appealed to, as did you, about how he would not have come to faith but for the church. Romanists have this tendency to read back into the statements of the Early Church Fathers (ECFs) a certain meaning that one wants to see, regardless of whether that perceived meaning can stand the test of historical examination and scrutiny. Further, in my wide-ranging rebuttal of numerous claims made that Protestants have no answer to Romanist one-liners about various topics I included adequate context and scrutiny to demonstrate that Augustine is not bowing to the existing church at Rome, but rather to the authority of the church as the means of the salvation of all persons from the preaching of the word of God. You argued for consideration of Augustine's other words elsewhere, and in my rejoinder I noted the contrary that supported my original postion. All of which is to say that getting into a "he said this here, but later he says this elsewhere" is not going to prevail in support of any position you may have.
Augustine Belongs to The Church Militant - Not Rome Alone
There was a point in history when Rome viewed Augustine’s theology as cardinal, only rejecting it, indeed anathematizing it, at Trent for semi-Pelagianism. The Reformed still cling to Augustine's view of regeneration. R.C. Sproul has written that the WCF is "thoroughly Augustinian". B. B. Warfield noted that the Reformation was a theological revival to recover Augustinianism. Sacramentally, both to baptism and to communion, Augustine was a Lutheran, definitely not a Romanist. One need not wonder why Luther was an Augustinian. Soteriologically, Augustine was as Calvinistic as the Apostle Paul. Rome strives mightily to claim Augustine as a great supporter of its views. Those having studied and read what Augustine wrote will agree that said support of Rome is very hard to come by. And as we see in this small discussion, when some of Augustine is put forth it is subject to interpretation; and some of what Augustine wrote is completely incompatible with Rome's views of the church authority. Neither Rome nor Protestantism owns Augustine; he belongs to the church.
Using the ECF Wisely
The ECF generally use but the language of the Scriptures upon the topics before us, while they scarcely make any statements which afford us materials for deciding in what precise sense they understood these topics. They rightly leave the matter very much where Scripture leaves it, and where, but for the rise of errors needing to be contradicted and opposed, it might still have been left. As long as Rome's apologists are able to speak in grandiose and general terms of the ECF for the claims of Rome, they are able to make it appear to others as though Rome's paradigm for ecclesiology is the answer to all ecclesiastical controversies. But once they try to offer specific examples, where such claims are represented by a particular case, their arguments are usually toppled by overt anachronistic readings of the ECF. Romanists do this very thing when they appeal to Augustine's use of "Rome" and "Church" to mean the Rome and its Church they now follow, all the while refusing to submit to the plain facts of history.
The Historical Rise of Romanism
For those who don't know much about church history personal research availing oneself of more than just Rome's own accounts of its history is in order in order to separate mythology from factuality and to discount Rome's claims of monolithicity. A good first step take would be to read First Clement. It's one of the earliest extra-Biblical Christian documents available, and it represents early Christianity in the city of Rome and is very relevant and contradictory to the claims about the early church, especially when Rome's apologists attempt to appeal to Rome as the bearer of its own historical foundations with the idea that the early particular church existing in Rome is that same church today.
Spoiler
The early days of the particular church in Rome was organized as a presbytery until the middle to later part of the second century. The prebytery consisted of a plurality of elders or presbyters, the latter term being synonymous with bishops. Roman Catholicism does not exist as such until the fourth century, at the earliest, really until Leo I (440-461). Episcopacy, yes, but not Roman Catholicism. It was Damasus I (reigned 366–84 AD), who first claimed the title pope (from the Latin, papa, “father”) for the bishop of Rome, and there was nothing remotely like the papacy as we know it until Gregory I (reigned 590–604), following the fall of the Empire in the West (476 AD). In fact, Gregory I was offended by the label universal pope, noting a word of proud address that I have forbidden….None of my predecessors ever wished to use this profane word ['universal']….But I say it confidently, because whoever calls himself ‘universal bishop’ or wishes to be so called, is in his self-exaltation Antichrist’s precursor, for in his swaggering he sets himself before the rest. Sadly history tells us that Gregory I, the last good pope (HT: Calvin), was ignored as Leo I and Galsius led the way to later bishops of Rome laying claim to this proud address.
By the ninth century Christendom was divided governmentally into five geographic regions, having heads in Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch. Over the years Rome had started claiming more and more power and authority. The papacy as we know it is a medieval creature. And the Romanist's claims to an unbroken succession tumbles upon the facts of history, especially those facts cropping up at Avignon, Pisa, and Rome for a century in the late medieval period. See also here. Years later at Reims in 1049, the Roman Church made it clear that the pope is pontifex universalis, assuming upon itself what Gregory claimed as identification of the one who in his self-exaltation [is] Antichrist’s precursor…. The papacy we see today really was not even present until Gregory VII (1073 AD).
The actual establishment of the political and ecclesiastical Rome owes its genesis to three popes: Hildebrand (1020-1085), Innocent III (1161-1216), and Boniface VIII (1235-1303). With Innocent III the papacy was cemented as a controller of church and state. His Fourth Lateran Council defined RCC's seven sacraments, required confession, and made the penitential treadmill necessary as the only way to salvation. Finally Boniface's Unam Sanctum made submission to the Pope necessary for salvation.
By the thirteenth century the true church was in the wilderness existing in part among some within the RCC and the Waldenses. Justification by faith alone, the divine way of forgiveness and salvation had yet to be officially denounced and condemned. Lastly, the church had yet to declare that Rome's interpretation of inspired Holy Writ was infallible and solely legitimate. So the true church was there, but, as noted, scattered in the wilderness wherein the elect did hear our Lord's voice above that of the false shepherds, much like the blind man heard Jesus as the Christ in John 9.
AMR
WonderfulLordJesus
New member
I share your sentiments. Never having been a Catholic, and though baptized through a Protestant denomination, I've never thought of myself as Protestant, as if living in some protest. Luther was protesting Catholicism, and many others of the Reformation, but this was another time. I've not engaged in any raging battle against Catholics. They aren't in any congregation I've been a member of, aren't talked about in preaching week to week, nobody wringing their hands over Catholics. So, it's making a significance of Catholicism that doesn't reflect a reality, Catholicism not being relevant in my Christian walk or any others I know. I only see them on messages boards, actually, but don't read them much, as all they talk about are things of Rome, Mary and their "church," don't seem to like talking about Jesus much, just this constant ad for their cult. It gets old. As said before, you can read about the Reformation on the web, no need to rehash all that, in moldered bites on some message board. Nothing new is ever said, and it's not part of the discourse in my Christian community. Nobody's protesting these days, nobody my entire life. We have the reliable word of God in the Bible, the New Testament faith teaching that was enough for Jesus Christ and His apostles. That Francis guy isn't even on the reservation, don't really know what his religion is, some sort of Chrislamogaytheism? He's like some weird guy, running around in a costume, in his big clown hat, saying some very stupid things that aren't Christian.
glassjester
Well-known member
Cruciform
New member
Post #98
WonderfulLordJesus
New member
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
As to the penchant Francis has for the taste of shoe leather, in terms of Christianity, and if you have an empty stomach, this lady points out some real zingers of the infallible one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnUJC9DZwRU&feature=youtu.be
Cruciform
New member
Post your proof. :yawn:
Bad post
brewmama
New member
Why would you be against the Scriptures that Jesus and the early church used?
I'm talking about the complete bible that we use to correct. Lots of writings out there but the holy sporit finished the bible through the protestants. Adding or subtracting from that bible will cause the whole book to fall apart.
brewmama
New member
I'm talking about the Septuagint, which is what Jesus and the Apostles used, and you claim is not valid. Luther is the one who took books out, so I guess you are saying protestants caused the whole book to fall apart.
If you say so.
Last edited:
Cruciform
New member
So, then, no actual proof whatsoever.
A conclusion drawn from the demonstrable facts of ecclesiastical history. Your knee-jerk sectarian dismissal of such facts changes nothing.
If you're referring to the Coptic Orthodox churches, note that they are part of the Oriental Orthodox family of churches, which has been a distinct body only since the schism following the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451, when it took a different position on Christology from that of the Roman Catholic Church. So much for your fabricated history of Christ's Church.
You do if you wish to claim any binding apostolic authority whatsoever for your denomination's beliefs, doctrines, and practices. Otherwise, they're nothing more than mere human opinions---mere traditions of men. This is the entire point of my oft-repeated observation that every Protestant interpretive claim is merely an appeal to the opinions of his chosen man-made non-Catholic (Protestant) sect. It goes to the central issue of doctrinal authority and ecclesiology.
You do? Exactly how much of this, then, do you affirm and follow?
Again, this is merely a parroting of the particular ecclesiology that you have been fed by your chosen Southern Baptist denomination, a man-made sect which did not even exist prior to its invention by men in 1845. Thus, your preferred non-Catholic sect clearly cannot claim to be that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D., and therefore cannot claim any binding doctrinal authority whatsoever for its merely human interpretations and opinions. This is the entire point I've been trying to make on this forum for years now, and which the anti-Catholics here have been mindlessly dodging, distorting, and dismissing for just as long.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+