Nick Fuentes says don't read your bible, just listen to "clergy"
(www.youtube.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (64)
sorted by:
I literally gave you an example why the Orthodox and the Catholic position is not the same and you've blown past though it... Orthodoxy taches monarchical Trinitarianism - the Father is the origin of the Trinity. He begets the Son and spirates the Spirit. The theological consequences of the filioque are devastating. Here's a video explaining it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDwuQqPr-rM
The resolution of the filioque is for Rome to renounce this development and return to the original Nicaean creed. But you understand that admitting they've taught error for 1000 years will automatically destroy their whole system so that's not happening. Btw, as I already said if Rom falls, Protestantism falls too because you adopted their tradition and their teachings like the filioque.
You don't have apostolic succession through Luther. Luther wasn't a bishop to begin with. He never claimed to have apostolic succession. He doesn't need it for his system which is based on personal inspiration, Sola Christus and Sola Scriptura. He literally made up that system to undermine the authority of the Pope which is guaranteed by tradition and apostolic succession. You're making up stuff to check the boxes you see that are missing in your system. This is idiocy.
That's not a mark but a necessary precondition. There are many things which define and identify the Church. The reason I call it the True Church is to set it apart from all the heterodox who use the term to denote multiple sects. The Church can only be one. There are no 100 bodies of Christ. There's no division within His Body either, but complete unity in sacraments and creed. Everyone is in communion in the Church through baptism and the Eucharist. The fullness of truth and grace is only in the Church. If "a Church" doesn't lay claim to being the single true Church, then it's definitely not it. Branch theory is unscriptural. But if you are a Lutheran and believe the Lutheran Church - the specific denomination that has common creed and tradition - is the true Church then you're past that hurdle. Now all you have to do is demonstrate how that's the case. You can't of course because of the stated above.
Correct, Origen wasn't excommunicated but his teachings were condemned. Tertullian left the Church for montanism. He didn't bring anything back to Christianity - he became the leader of that sect and influenced it but didn't return to the Church. His earlier writings are considered authoritative but he's not canonized as a saint.
For a millennium it was held that the miaphysite position was not the same as Orthodoxy and then finally we agreed that the words were different but the core meaning was the same. Do you want me to show that? After long consideration I hold that the filioque is ultimately semantic, that in one sense the Spirit "proceeds" from the Son and in another sense he doesn't, and that this does not offend any Orthodox tradition.
I also see nothing in the Bible (or tradition) that says apostolic tradition must only flow through those titled "bishops" and not through other appointed overseers like doctors. The word "bishop" is now more refined than the Biblical word for "overseer".
There are many members in Christ's body. Members can mean both churches and individuals. Since you admit the thief, you admit God works when and where he pleases as a Reformed confession says, and it doesn't contradict One Body. Also, I find much OT example, biggest being Israel-Judah, of God using division to achieve his purposes (not to mention Jew-Gentile in Romans 11).
So you're holding out for filioque, succession, and hierarchical unity. After much past consideration of the accessible material, I concluded that these are ultimately semantic and as wasteful as arguments like infralapsarian vs. supralapsarian. The bridge-builder is capable of seeing both sides and identifying the semantic point that unifies them. The only thing holding back is the inaccessible material, namely the reservations that Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant leaders have against resolving the dilemma. You want a renunciation, but it doesn't have to take that form if there is a logical position where the development can be recast without offending your tradition, and that has been done in other cases. So I hold out for hope.
If you wish to refer me to written sources, I can continue to prosecute my hypothesis; but if you refer me to the hierarchy it will need to wait until I can make it an issue IRL.