It's been really interesting seeing the debates between Protestants and Catholics/Orthodox evolve on here. At least when I got here a while back the Protestants held the rhetorical sway more strongly imo but over time I've really seen the Catholic and Orthodox posters adapt and learn from this and improve a lot more. They've caught onto the talking points coming from the Protestant posters. For example the Calvinist posters on here used to make fun of the Catholics and Orthodox for (allegedly) admitting episcopal polity wasn't Biblical forcing them to have to look to the Church Fathers alone but I saw a thread not too long ago of an Orthodox poster (I believe) making an extremely good case for it being Biblical and he really gave the Presbyterian poster a run for his money. I think the Cathobros have learned from their experiences and have developed their theology knowledge in response to this. But I wonder if Protestant posters can adapt or how they will at least. Anyway the debates between the Christians on here usually come down more to rhetorical ability and who is better at pulling more verses (to appear to have Biblical support, like a form of Biblical gish galloping actually) than to good logical argumentation or exegesis. But that's just my 2 cents haha.
>>18298423I can attest. Proverbs 27:17
Both are false
>>18298423>but I saw a thread not too long ago of an Orthodox poster (I believe) making an extremely good case for it being BiblicalCan you link the thread?
>>18298423Why are Caths and Orthos even playing the "it's in the Bible" game? That rule only applies to the Protestants. Others have Church traditions, Church doctrine and the Holy Spirit.
>>18299209>Church traditions, Church doctrine and the Holy Spiritnone of those are consistent e.g. St. Francis of Assisi would be guilty of the sin of prelest in Eastern Orthodoxy
>>18299209Because it's actually false that Catholics can believe in something without a Biblical foundation. Hence why Catholics believe in the material sufficiency of scripture. No doctrine can be legitimate without having a Biblical precedent for it. I don't actually think Catholics (or Orthodox for that matter) even have a problem with acknowledging scripture holds unique weight within the rule of faith. Obviously it does being that it is an inspired text and is materially sufficient, and without which you cannot establish any doctrine. The real questions come down to is scripture the only rule of faith and/or is scripture the supreme rule of faith?
>>18299350>The real questions come down to is scripture the only rule of faith and/or is scripture the supreme rule of faith?Neither it's the Pope who is divinely inspired when speaking ex cathedra
>>18299245The Bible isn't known to be very consistent either.>>18299519Exactly. Catholics believe tons of things that don't have scriptural basis at all like the assuption of Mary. And the highest authority on doctrine comes from the pope when he is speaking in Ex Cathedra mode under the influence of the Spirit.In short: Protestants can suck my fat cock.
Why the need for arguing about this? You would think that God favors the people he loves the most, and it's objective fact that Protestant countries have the best living standards for their populace. Catholics come close second, but Orthodox countries aren't that far off from Islamic countries.
>>18298423Protestants here are virtually non-existent because most 4chan posters are from first world countries where Protestantism simply died out (e.g. Australia, Netherlands, etc.) while Catholics in these countries are just "culturally Catholic" and kept the culture since it was tied to a national ethnic one (Irish Catholic, Italian, etc.)
>>18299866>God is fucking Swiss after allGnostics were right, no good divine creator could possibly be so evil as to be Swiss
>>18299853>Exactly. Catholics believe tons of things that don't have scriptural basis at all like the assumption of Mary.Well that's just not true since many Catholic theologians would appeal to Revelation 11:19-12:1-5;13-17 as a scriptural allusion to the bodily assumption of Mary. Compare Luke 1:43-45 with 2 Samuel 6:9-14 to further see the typological significance of Revelation 11:19-12:1 with Mary. Additionally, in MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS Pope Pius XII also lists Psalm 132:8 and Song of Songs 3:6 as providing typological support for the assumption dogma and the heavenly Queenship of Mary. So it's simply false to assert that the Catholic Church does not look to scripture when evaluating doctrine. The material sufficiency of scripture actually gives Catholics the assurance that any dogma or doctrine proclaimed by the Church does have Biblical foundations to it, whether it is explicitly detailed by scripture, alluded to, or logically entailed by another teaching in scripture. Scripture obviously has a unique role in evaluation of dogma, it would never suffice the Church to proclaim doctrine without that doctrine also being a consequent of what is taught by scripture.
