It seems the quotation from Origen is not relevant to the subject (let alone the denial of Christ’s unique salvific work this implies it to be), since the full quote is: “It may be that as we have been purchased by the precious blood of Jesus who has received a name above all names, so some will be ransomed by the precious blood of martyrs; for the martyrs themselves are exalted higher than they would have been if they had been justified only and not also become martyrs.” Origen’s meaning by the word “ransom” is not clear, and the tenor of the statement is only that martyrs shall on account of their martyrdom receive a greater reward. The entire context of this statement is non-soteriological. The most charitable and orthodox interpretation I can see (which may be more than Origen deserves, all things considered) is that martyrdom could spur onlookers to repentance and faith.

Now, concerning post-baptismal sin, there are two senses in which to consider it, 1. Regarding the sinner’s state before God, 2. Regarding the public state of the sinner before the Church. In the first place the solution to the problem is not sola fide, but lifelong baptismal efficacy, so that my baptism avails the sins not only of the time of its administration but for all of my days (faith’s relevance being the means through which baptism is efficacious for me at all). The reformers often chastised the so-called sacrament of penance because it stole from baptism and granted it too little efficacy. In the second, public repentance is most necessary for one whose sin has scandalized the Church, who must prove himself, not to God but to the Church if he would be restored. This is especially true in the case of apostates.

The first Pope was clueless on the question of God being able to save people who committed post-baptismal sins or not (Acts 8:22), perhaps Jesus should've clarified that while he still walked the Earth.

>>18434319
Actually Origen directly compares the acts of martyrdom to the Leviticial priest in the Old Testament in the Exhoratio, writing
>And consider whether, just as the Savior’s [baptism] brought purification to the world, the baptism of martyrdom may also serve as purification for many. For just as those who provided ministry at the altar according to the Law of Moses believed that they obtained remission of [the peoples’] sins by the blood of goats and bulls (Heb. 9:13, 10:4; Ps. 50:13), so the souls of those “who have been beheaded for the witness of Jesus” (Rev. 20:4, 6:9) do not minister in vain at the heavenly altar, but provide the remission of sins for those who pray.
One cannot help but to conclude from this that Origen views martyrdom as a kind of propitiation for sins applicable to others, even as Jesus's was. Writing further he states:
> ἅμα δὲ καὶ γινώσκομεν ὅτι, ὥσπερ ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς θυσίαν ἑαυτὸν προσήνεγκεν Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστὸς, οὕτως οἱ ἱερεῖς, ὧν ἐστιν ἀρχιερεὺς, θυσίαν ἑαυτοὺς προσφέρουσι·
>And at the same time we know that, just as the high priest Jesus Christ took up himself as a sacrifice, these priests (the martyrs), of whom he is high priest, offer themselves as a sacrifice.

>>18434319
>Now, concerning post-baptismal sin, there are two senses in which to consider it, 1. Regarding the sinner’s state before God, 2. Regarding the public state of the sinner before the Church. In the first place the solution to the problem is not sola fide, but lifelong baptismal efficacy, so that my baptism avails the sins not only of the time of its administration but for all of my days (faith’s relevance being the means through which baptism is efficacious for me at all). The reformers often chastised the so-called sacrament of penance because it stole from baptism and granted it too little efficacy. In the second, public repentance is most necessary for one whose sin has scandalized the Church, who must prove himself, not to God but to the Church if he would be restored. This is especially true in the case of apostates.
But this position is contrary to the position of Fathers like Tertullian (De Paenitentia) and Cyprian (On the Lapsed), who see penances as directly appeasing God, as acts of satisfaction. Since we are on the topic of martyrdom, in his seminal work "The Theology of Tertullian", R.E. Roberts writes this of Tertullian's view:
>The honourable esteem in which martyrdom was held is reflected in the view taken of martyrdom as a second baptism. The grounds for calling it so were that Jesus had said, 'I have a baptism to be baptized with,' when He was already baptized, and that John had described Him as coming by water and the blood. Further, the water and the blood that issued from the Saviour's side were figures of baptism by water and blood. Martyrdom was a form of baptism which obviated the necessity of prior baptism, and which restored to the sufferer the privileges of a baptism which he had lost.

>>18434288
UH OH! You made the local Calvinist Prot mad OP!

>>18434374
(It is interesting that Cyprian in this treatise labors to deny what in your quotes Origen affirms, namely that the martyrs save anyone else) Now first of all, these writers are not perfectly orthodox on this subject, as it was by their heavy-handed influence that the Donatist schism would arise, who took them as their fathers. Tertullian expressly taught that the baptized had only one opportunity to repent, for which reason he opposed infant baptism, since he feared they would be damned if baptized too early and given a long life to ruin it. Second, their intention was to impress upon their readers a fear of God, detestation for sin and desire for repentance, and this is a laudable goal. Thirdly, the authority and source of our religion is not the private opinions of men, but the words of God.

>>18434288
>>18434370
>Fathers like Origen
You know Origenism was condemned as a heresy by the ecumenical councils right

>>18434288
Wtf does rigorism mean? I'm somewhat educated in theology but I'd like a definition.

>>18434562
>(It is interesting that Cyprian in this treatise labors to deny what in your quotes Origen affirms, namely that the martyrs save anyone else)
Cyprian's concern was about the laxity with which indulgences were being issues for the lapsi, he wasn't in opposition to the theology behind them. "We believe" he says, "indeed, that the merits of martyrs and the works of the righteous are of great avail with the Judge; but that will be when the day of judgment shall come; when, after the conclusion of this life and the world, His people shall stand before the tribunal of Christ." But really this is beside the point, Cyprian being only one treasure among many of the developing theology during this time surrounding the issue of grave sin, none of which offered a solution or found in the rule of faith "justification by faith alone."

>>18434562
>Now first of all, these writers are not perfectly orthodox on this subject, as it was by their heavy-handed influence that the Donatist schism would arise, who took them as their fathers.
The heretics of all kinds of parties took to themselves many Fathers for their own, this isn't unique to the rigorist parties. This isn't surprising because they've been authoritative to most Christians throughout the centuries.
>Tertullian expressly taught that the baptized had only one opportunity to repent, for which reason he opposed infant baptism, since he feared they would be damned if baptized too early and given a long life to ruin it.
I am aware of this, his rigorist attitudes are what lead the mainstream Church to develop its doctrine of absolution and penance. What's important though about Tertullian is not so much his rigorist position but more so how he provides clear and early evidence for the existing Church custom of exomologesis, for which he says, "whereby we confess our sins to the Lord, not indeed as if He were ignorant of them, but inasmuch as by confession satisfaction is settled, of confession repentance is born; by repentance God is appeased." It was not something he or others necessarily introduced in spite of this or that thing, it was something done from a very early date and with which someone who was a rigorist like Tertullian had to contend with. Tertullian, one of the earliest Fathers who speaks about the Rule of Faith, conspiciously fails to mention that a doctrine like sola fide could be found in its deposit.
>Thirdly, the authority and source of our religion is not the private opinions of men, but the words of God.
Amen. And these words are transmitted by God's faithful servants in the Church, "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter."

>>18434643
>This isn't surprising because they've been authoritative to most Christians throughout the centuries.
These two in particular were more so authoritative in Africa than elsewhere.
>he provides clear and early evidence for the existing Church custom of exomologesis
Note the enormous differences between this ancient practice and the later medieval sacrament of penance. Here, confession is public, there it is secret; here absolution is granted by the congregation, there it is granted by a priest as a special power of his office; nor does Tertullian recognize or show awareness of any distinction between mortal and venial sins, or temporal and eternal punishments. If we are to be charged with novelty for supposedly contradicting this practice, Rome is to be no less.
>It was not something he or others necessarily introduced in spite of this or that thing
I do not doubt the practice pre-existed Tertullian, but I think it would have originated with an orthodox justification, i.e. requiring those which had committed gross sins to publicly repent and prove their repentance through penance to be restored to the congregation, as we do now.
>Tertullian, one of the earliest Fathers who speaks about the Rule of Faith, conspiciously fails to mention that a doctrine like sola fide could be found in its deposit.
1. It is not as though he listed every Christian doctrine 2. I do not think you want to apply this standard consistently; where does Tertullian speak of the bodily assumption of Mary? 3. There were fathers both before and after him in which sola fide was unambiguously present
(cont.)

>>18434643
>2 Thess 2:15
The word “tradition” here literally means that which was passed down, transmitted. The “you” of the verse refers to the Thessalonians alone, and the “us” refers to Paul and his companions alone. He is referring in particular to the eschatological doctrine on which the epistle is written, which he had also spoken to them by mouth (verse 5). The purpose of the epistle is to reprimand them for abandoning this doctrine and using a false teaching to justify slovenly sin, this verse is an encouragement to stop doing that and heed this doctrine instead. Read the book from chapter 1 verse 1. Now, how this applies to us today is that we are to hold fast to the apostolic teaching. We indeed receive this from tradition, yet it is only on the authority of the word of God. The verse cannot be used to justify unbiblical novelties and innovations which were unknown and contrary to the apostles. This is why sola scriptura is so important, not against tradition but as its only guardian, to purge human and demonic errors from the sacred tradition and ensure that what the Church teaches is only that which is Catholic, that is what was believed everywhere, at all times, by everyone.

>>18434666
>>18434669
>These two in particular were more so authoritative in Africa than elsewhere.
These two in particular are the fathers of Latin theology. Something similar could be said of Augustine, whose theology is neglected by the east. This isn't really a relevant point.
>Note the enormous differences between this ancient practice and the later medieval sacrament of penance.
Notice even still the far far more enormous difference between both the practice and the theology of the 16th century Reformed Church and the ancient practice.
>there it is granted by a priest as a special power of his office
Both Tertullian and Cyprian do connect the office of the bishop and/or presbyter with the power to absolve sin.
>nor does Tertullian recognize or show awareness of any distinction between mortal and venial sins, or temporal and eternal punishments.
You continue to showcase your intellectual dishonestly since Tertullian, as most ancient authorities, does make a distinction between greater and lesser sins, for which lesser ones can be "absolved by the bishop" (On Modesty 18) but for greater ones require the Second Repentance, without which a person cannot be saved. Lesser sins, for Tertullian, we "daily faults", while greater ones like adultery, idolatry, murder, and theft were significantly more grave. True this is not exactly the form of the teaching as now articulated in Latin Catholic theology, but this isn't surprising given Tertullian's own rigorist tendencies. What came to be the Church's position was that of the moderates. The Roman Church in particular always had a tendency to adopt the moderate, even liberal, position in these rigorist controversies. What has come down to us now is rooted in this history.

>>18434666
>>18434669
>but I think it would have originated with an orthodox justification
You're assuming that the Calvinist position is orthodox. This is circular reasoning.
>requiring those which had committed gross sins to publicly repent and prove their repentance through penance to be restored to the congregation, as we do now.
This is only partially the justification for public penance in the early Church. But for all that we have on this, our earliest writers all agree that these penances were long, sometimes very strict (with corporeal punishments), and necessary for reconciliation with God, condemnation being a very real possibility for the penitent because of their grave sin. The theology articulated by our earliest writers involves the notions of satisfaction and appeasement, much more similar to Latin Catholic doctrine than Reformed.
>1. It is not as though he listed every Christian doctrine 2. I do not think you want to apply this standard consistently; where does Tertullian speak of the bodily assumption of Mary?
Since the assumption doctrine wasn't a dogmatic issue at the time I wouldn't expect to see it being listed among the essentials of the faith. Whereas, the issue we are discussing was an important topic, with which if sola fide had belong to the Rule of Faith, surely this would have been a solution to the issue. But neither the rigorists nor the mainstream Church adopted such a theology.

>>18434666
>>18434669
Part 1 of Post 3
>The verse cannot be used to justify unbiblical novelties and innovations which were unknown and contrary to the apostles.
Similar to your mistake above about assuming the Reformed position to be orthodox, you now assume the Calvinist position to be apostolical which it most certainly is not. Before pointing out the speck in someone's eye, remove the plank from your own. This hypocrisy from Protestants is exactly why St. John H. Newman wrote his magnum opus "On the Development of Doctrine." Now I find his reasoning plain, and just, and the most common sensical. When Mr. Newman wrote to be "deep in history is to cease being a Protestant", he was not saying the early Church was unequivocally Catholic in its doctrine (not that he doesn't believe the early Church was truly Catholic, but that's beside the point), rather he was showing that if anything, if anyone is going to be intellectually honest, no one would ever conclude the early Church was Protestant or become a Protestant by studying the first Christians,

>>18434666
>>18434669
Part 2 of Post 3
>Let them consider, that if they can criticize history, the facts of history certainly can retort upon them. . . . And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this.
>And Protestantism has ever felt it so. I do not mean that every writer on the Protestant side has felt it... but Protestantism, as a whole, feels it, and has felt it. This is shown in the determination already referred to of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone: men never would have put it aside, unless they had despaired of it... To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.

And this remains the problem for me with Protestantism, that it cannot be convincingly shown that the two most important slogans of the reformation, sola scriptura or sola fide, can beyond reasonable doubt be demonstrated to have been held as part of the Rule of Faith in the early Church, derived from scripture or the apostolic teaching.

bump

>>18435134
>These two in particular are the fathers of Latin theology. Something similar could be said of Augustine, whose theology is neglected by the east. This isn't really a relevant point.
No, the two are not comparable. Tertullian was rarely cited by anyone in the early Church. Cyprian was primarily influential through Augustine. In the patristic era, the influence of those two was almost completely limited to Africa, from which the Donatists also came.
>Notice even still the far far more enormous difference between both the practice and the theology of the 16th century Reformed Church and the ancient practice.
>Notice even still the far far more enormous difference between both the practice and the theology of the 16th century Reformed Church and the ancient practice.
It is less different, as I described.
>Both Tertullian and Cyprian do connect the office of the bishop and/or presbyter with the power to absolve sin.
On Repentance makes exactly 1 reference to prebyters, 0 to bishops, and repeatedly identifies the church (that is, the congregation) as being the one to grant forgiveness (insofar as they grant forgiveness, for Tertullian teaches that they only plead for God to grant forgiveness, he says “In a company of two is the church; but the church is Christ. When, then, you cast yourself at the brethren's knees, you are handling Christ, you are entreating Christ. In like manner, when they shed tears over you, it is Christ who suffers, Christ who prays the Father for mercy.”)
(1/5)

>>18435134
>You continue to showcase your intellectual dishonestly
You accuse me of what you alone here are guilty of, for what I said is merely true and unimpeachable, while what you are saying here is directly deceptive, intended to deceive by creating an impression that Tertullian actually does recognize these distinctions. He does not. According to the papists, a mortal sin a sin which destroye the grace of justification, but a venial sin only adds temporal punishments to a justified believer’s account, which he must make satisfactions for either in this life through penances or in purgatory. Is this what he teaches? Is it not the case, sir, that this is completely incompatible with the very distinction you make reference to? Since, in Tertullian these “lesser” sins are only accidental, casual, and ignorant sins committed through the day, which are against men and not God, which can be forgiven by the bishop. The distinction in Tertullian is not between sins which bring eternal punishments and sins which bring only temporal ones, but between sins which are forgivable and ones which are not. You have proven Tertullian’s consistency with Rome by proving his incompatibility with her.
>What came to be the Church's position was that of the moderates.
No. Again, the distinction of venial and mortal sins is between sins which forfeit justification, and sins which only bring temporal punishment to the justified. This is emphatically not what Tertullian was here arguing against. You have assumed its relevance because you have *anachronistically* inserted medieval concepts into an ancient context.
(2/5)

>>18435136
>You're assuming that the Calvinist position is orthodox. This is circular reasoning.
What confusion led you to this misunderstanding, I do not know, but there is no circle here. Orthodoxy is defined by the teaching of the holy scriptures. Calvinism is taught by the holy scriptures. Therefore, Calvinism is orthodoxy.
>But for all that we have on this, our earliest writers all agree
How many of our earliest writers discuss this subject?
>The theology articulated by our earliest writers involves the notions of satisfaction and appeasement
No sir, the apostolic fathers were more orthodox. Clement of Rome says “And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men”.
>Since the assumption doctrine wasn't a dogmatic issue at the time I wouldn't expect to see it being listed among the essentials of the faith
This is just a concession that 1. Rome contradicts itself, in teaching the cessation of divine revelation but functioning on the continuation of divine revelation, for how could that which did not belong to the Church’s dogma now do so, unless she has received greater revelation? 2. Rome is not the ancient Church, for you as a papist are required on pain of a curse to believe what was completely unknown in the patristic era. What relevance fundamentals have either, I do not know, considering as I have said he gives no such doctrinal list to begin with. Again, you misrepresent the issue, now flagrantly after I told you this is not our solution to the problem anyways.
(3/5)

>>18434584
Nobody cares.

Origen is insanely important and highly regarded by a huge number of patristic writers.
Think famous doctors, like Ambrose, among many others.
If his Secunda had survived, there would be very little debate over how ancient Hebrew was pronounced, since that work was a *transliteration* of the Hebrew bible into Greek letters with all vowel sounds explicitly characterized.

Justinian was a piece of shit and caesaropapists shouldn't bother defending him or pretending he is a saint.
He should never have tried to force actual bishops to adopt his positions. That's not what the emperor is supposed to do.

Ironically one of the things he did formally recognize, though he could never have actually established it himself, was the primacy of the Roman see.

>>18435137
>Similar to your mistake above about assuming the Reformed position to be orthodox, you now assume the Calvinist position to be apostolical which it most certainly is not
Ignoring the fact you are moving the goalposts (as you are dogmatically required to believe in myths which originally appeared over half a millennium after the apostles —such deep darkness is the consequence of denying sola scriptura), what is apostolic is known from the apostolic writings. It is not because a modern pederast in Italy has declared it so that something is apostolic, it is apostolic because it was taught by the apostles. This much the holy scriptures force us to affirm of Calvinism and deny of Romanism.
>rather he was showing that if anything, if anyone is going to be intellectually honest, no one would ever conclude the early Church was Protestant or become a Protestant by studying the first Christians
I say he showed he was a fool, as are you. There is not a single father who would have failed to identify the modern church of Rome as an apostate perversion of Christianity, and there is not a single one who would not have fled to the Protestant banner if they rose during the Reformation. The differences are not minor and subtle, but enormous and irreconcilable. Which father ever heard of the papacy? Which father ever heard of the sacrifice of the mass? Which father ever heard of purgatory? Which father ever saw an image in a church and did not destroy it, and which one fell down in worship of them? Whatever delusional excuses you have to sustain your idolatry and pride (for which you are condemned by God, a material and formal heretic, not looked over like some of the fathers, if indeed they were overlooked, but certainly remaining in your sins and under the judgement of God against which Christ will be of no benefit to you as long as you persist in these damnable heresies) it is unequivocal in reality that these are innovations which long postdate the church fathers.

>>18435137
What is found between Romanism and ancient Christianity is two different religions. Indeed, I agree with what was well said by the Puritan William Perkins, “It is impossible for any popish divine in the world to show out of the true monuments of the councils and fathers, and out of their natural sense and meaning, that the faith of the present church of Rome is truly Catholic in those points wherein it dissents from the Reformed churches of the gospel.” And I think the reformers became Protestants by studying the first Christians.
>>18435139
>And this remains the problem for me with Protestantism
In addition to the historical error, there is also a theological one. For we may say what this or that man believed, but not, this man believed it, therefore it is true. Even if the fathers had all taught Romanism (which is a joke), we would be required to reject because we follow God and not men. The authority of a theologian is like the authority of a physicist, who is neither the source of the truth of physics, nor is he the evidence of it, but only an expert who being an expert is learned in the subject and able to exposit it well. And so we agree with Augustine not because he was Augustine but because he agreed with scripture.
(5/5)

>>18436362
>I’m a Roman Catholic
>I explicitly do not care about the dogmatic judgement of an ecumenical council

>>18436367
Origen doesn't stop being important just because Justinian personally decided he was not acceptable.
You can't just imprison the pope and demand he sign the paper you put before him. That's not how these things work.

I would compare it to forcing someone to ordain you at gunpoint, and then pretending as if the ordination was actually valid. Protip, it would not be even if the form was correct because volition is an essential element.

Besides, it's likely Origen's anathema in that document is a later interpolation. Something Justinian or his agent added to the canons after the fact.
You know, since he claimed ultimate regulatory authority over the entire church as a secular magnate, it's mode of worship, writing ecclesial laws, dictating doctrine himself, etc.

And what's more, anon wasn't even invoking him as an authority or that his argument for martyrs' deaths being propitiatory is true.
But as a witness to a certain understanding of sin being present or even common in antiquity, right or wrong.

As a western Christian, I rightfully see the Byzantine papacy as a dark period not only for the church but for Europe as a whole. Justinian destroyed quite a lot.
Rivaled by the century of chaos following the Carolingian collapse, which Baronius calls a "dark age".
Which ended with one of many reform movements within the church during the medieval period, the Gregorian. Another example would be the Cistercian. This cycle of moral decline and subsequent internal reform would continue with many iterations, down to the present day.

Those who call themselves "reformed" or descending from the "reformers", do not actually belong to that reforming tradition which has always been part of the church by necessity.

>>18436356
>>18436359
>>18436361
>>18436363
>>18436364
>No, the two are not comparable. Tertullian was rarely cited by anyone in the early Church. Cyprian was primarily influential through Augustine. In the patristic era, the influence of those two was almost completely limited to Africa, from which the Donatists also came.
I reiterate what I said above, this is not relevant and is just an abysmal attempt at distraction. So far my appeal to Tertullian and Cyprian provide for a powerful historical portrait of the cosmos of the early Church, with a penitential system and indulgences ubiquitous throughout. They are not the only ones who speak about this, but do give some of the most in-depth accounts about it being that they found themselves in the midst of controversies surrounding it. Nothing could be farther from the Reformed faith than this.

>>18436356
>>18436359
>>18436361
>>18436363
>>18436364
>On Repentance makes exactly 1 reference to prebyters, 0 to bishops, and repeatedly identifies the church (that is, the congregation) as being the one to grant forgiveness (insofar as they grant forgiveness, for Tertullian teaches that they only plead for God to grant forgiveness, he says “In a company of two is the church; but the church is Christ. When, then, you cast yourself at the brethren's knees, you are handling Christ, you are entreating Christ. In like manner, when they shed tears over you, it is Christ who suffers, Christ who prays the Father for mercy.”)
Nothing in that quote talks about absolution, which you are confused about. The latter, Montanist Tertullian, in attacking the mainstream doctrine that the Church can pardon sins, assumes that this power was considered to have been in the hands of the bishop, writing on On Modesty 1,
>In opposition to this (modesty), could I not have acted the dissembler? I hear that there has even been an edict set forth, and a peremptory one too. The Pontifex Maximus — that is, the bishop of bishops — issues an edict: I remit, to such as have discharged (the requirements of) repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication. O edict, on which cannot be inscribed, Good deed!
This indeed was the subject of his attacks, and of course Monatist Tertullian thought absolution could only come through martyrs or prophets.

>>18436356
>>18436359
>>18436361
>>18436363
>>18436364
>You accuse me of what you alone here are guilty of, for what I said is merely true and unimpeachable, while what you are saying here is directly deceptive, intended to deceive by creating an impression that Tertullian actually does recognize these distinctions. He does not. According to the papists, a mortal sin a sin which destroye the grace of justification, but a venial sin only adds temporal punishments to a justified believer’s account, which he must make satisfactions for either in this life through penances or in purgatory. Is this what he teaches? Is it not the case, sir, that this is completely incompatible with the very distinction you make reference to?
From the very outset of this post you, quite embarrassingly, took it upon yourself to reframe the Fathers in light of Reformed theology when they became an inconvenience to you, only to be trampled upon as Christ crushed the head of that ancient serpent! You have not once engaged honestly with the historical data, either dismissing, asserting anachronisms, or simply not addressing what has been presented to you thus far. In doing so you have illuminated the lack of explanatory value for historical doctrines that plague Calvinism. As for me, I did not claim Tertullian for Rome. How could I? He was a rigorist and an apostate! To the contrary he, among many other treasures, only bear witness to the traditions, customs, and theology of the apostolic teaching, developed and in continuity with the teaching of the Catholic Church, which is where our differences truly lay. For where the Church has doctrinal continuity, Protestants have doctrinal corruption. You have no continuity with this, your doctrines are instead whole-sale innovations, and reactionary to that which was in continuity! As always, the burden continues to be on you. This is where the thesis and theory of doctrine John Newman set forth truly shine forth, splendidly!

>>18436356
>>18436359
>>18436361
>>18436363
>>18436364

>No. Again, the distinction of venial and mortal sins is between sins which forfeit justification, and sins which only bring temporal punishment to the justified. This is emphatically not what Tertullian was here arguing against. You have assumed its relevance because you have *anachronistically* inserted medieval concepts into an ancient context.
The sense in which Tertullian made his distinctions is the same sense in which the Church makes it distinctions, even if more developed. What Reformed theologian would ever say what Tertullian does?

>What confusion led you to this misunderstanding, I do not know, but there is no circle here. Orthodoxy is defined by the teaching of the holy scriptures. Calvinism is taught by the holy scriptures. Therefore, Calvinism is orthodoxy.
You have laid forth your deceit quite plainly, you son of the devil! It is clear that your original intent was to have it seem that the Fathers were in fact Calvinists, but once refuted, you find yourself backed into a corner deferring to scripture. If I had a penny for every heretic who made deference to scripture I'd be rich!

>>18436356
>>18436359
>>18436361
>>18436363
>>18436364
>How many of our earliest writers discuss this subject?
Origen, Tertullian, the Shepherd of Hermas, Cyprian, Clement of Alexandria, Ambrose, Augustine, Basil. These writers variously refer to either/or penance, satisfactions, pardons, or meritorious works. As it pertains to penances and satisfaction, St. John Henry Newman delves into this in his Essay, writing,
"As to this question, it cannot be doubted that the Fathers considered penance as not a mere expression of contrition, but as an act done directly towards God and a means of averting His anger. “If the sinner spare nothimself, he will be spared by God,” says the writer who goes under the name of St. Ambrose. “Let him lie in sackcloth, and by the austerity of his life make amends for the offence of his past pleasures,” says St. Jerome.“As we have sinned greatly,” says St. Cyprian, “let us weep greatly; for a deep wound diligent and long tendingmust not be wanting, the repentance must not fall short of the offence.” “Take heed to thyself,” says St. Basil,“that, in proportion to the fault, thou admit also the restoration from the remedy.’Js] If so, the question followswhich was above contemplated,—if in consequence of death, or in the exercise of the Church’s discretion, the“plena poenitentia” is not accomplished in its ecclesiastical shape, how and when will the residue be exacted."
(Ch IX ; § 3)

>>18436356
>>18436359
>>18436361
>>18436363
>>18436364
>No sir, the apostolic fathers were more orthodox. Clement of Rome says “And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men”.
Stop equating orthodox with Calvinism. As for your quote, notice how Clement never mentions penal substitution, imputation, perseverance of the saints (in the Calvinistic sense), nor does he modify faith with "alone", nor need it be concluded that he denies the free cooperation on the part of man. Instead he immediately qualifies his statement in chapter 34, writing
>What, then, shall we do, brethren? Shall we cease from well-doing, and abandon charity? May the Master never allow that this should happen to us! but let us rather with diligence and zeal hasten to fulfil every good work.
To read this with the understanding that Clement has anything like Calvinism's ordo salutis in mind is outrageously anachronistic. Clement neither defines his terms nor is he giving a systematic theological treatment about justification. You are simply reading your theology into the text.

>Rome contradicts itself, in teaching the cessation of divine revelation but functioning on the continuation of divine revelation, for how could that which did not belong to the Church’s dogma now do so, unless she has received greater revelation?
This is just a misunderstanding about what dogma is and theological notes. A dogma is "a revealed teaching, either defined as such or taught as such by the ordinary and universal magisterium." Dogma can be either explicitly or implicitly part of the deposit of faith. For example, Mary as "Theotokos" rises to the level of "de fide definitia", formally defined at the Council of Ephesus, as a logical consequence of the incarnation doctrine.

>>18436356
>>18436359
>>18436361
>>18436363
>>18436364
>for you as a papist
Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad.

>What relevance fundamentals have either, I do not know, considering as I have said he gives no such doctrinal list to begin with.
He actually does in De Praescriptione Haereticorum, 13. I concede that this is not a complete list of all essential doctrine to be believed in. And to anticipate your response that what Tertullian lists is derivable from scripture, it would seem then that if the doctrine of justification by faith alone were a derivable essential, it's curious he doesn't mention it. Tertullian did not believe in sola scriptura though, as R.E. Roberts writes,
>He maintained that appeal should be made, not to the Scriptures, but to the Rule of Faith. Tradition, which was handed down from Christ through the apostles and the Churches, provided the test by which even the Scriptures were to be tried. In pursuance of this idea, Tertullian forbade the heretics the use of the Scriptures. The Church alone knew what the Scriptures meant, and alone had the right to use them in argument. But the Rule of Faith and the Scriptures are in perfect harmony. 'Now what is there in our Scriptures which is contrary to us?' 'What we are ourselves, that also the Scriptures are from the beginning' (De Praes. Haer., 38).

>>18436356
>>18436359
>>18436361
>>18436363
>>18436364
>Ignoring the fact you are moving the goalposts (as you are dogmatically required to believe in myths which originally appeared over half a millennium after the apostles —such deep darkness is the consequence of denying sola scriptura), what is apostolic is known from the apostolic writings. It is not because a modern pederast in Italy has declared it so that something is apostolic, it is apostolic because it was taught by the apostles. This much the holy scriptures force us to affirm of Calvinism and deny of Romanism.
Once again, circular reasoning, by assuming that what the Magisterium of the holy Catholic Church teaches is not in perfect harmony and agreement with both scripture and tradition. You only believe this because you've assumed that Calvinism has the correct interpretation of scripture, even though it's demonstrable, historically factual even, and would be admitted by any intellectually honest person, that its distinguishing characteristics are largely 16th century innovations. You may want to object that this assumes that the reformers interpretation of scripture is wrong, but then the same charge can be named against you, for assuming that 1000 years of pre-reformation theology is wrong. Don't even try to talk to me about scholasticism, since I can already hear your ignorance from a mile away. I charge you with the spirit of 16th century humanism, not the gospel.

>>18436356
>>18436359
>>18436361
>>18436363
>>18436364
>In addition to the historical error, there is also a theological one. For we may say what this or that man believed, but not, this man believed it, therefore it is true. Even if the fathers had all taught Romanism (which is a joke), we would be required to reject because we follow God and not men. The authority of a theologian is like the authority of a physicist, who is neither the source of the truth of physics, nor is he the evidence of it, but only an expert who being an expert is learned in the subject and able to exposit it well. And so we agree with Augustine not because he was Augustine but because he agreed with scripture.
And yet the scriptures cannot be rightly interpreted without theology apart from a specially imparted charisma by God. You throw the baby out with the bathwater. If you want to argue about the perspicuity of the scriptures, so do 1000 other heretics, boldly proclaiming their doctrines with the same type of conviction you have. You want to criticize Rome for lack of certitude in its statements when you couldn't even produce a unified reformation. No, instead your fruit is 500 years of break after break after break, sowing schisms and worse heresies than even those in antiquity, some of which go so far as to deny the Trinity. Protestantism doesn't produce any discernible certitude, only confusion. But you it's funny because you hold up your reformation theologians practically as if they were mini-popes in their own right, not daring to contradict them no matter how much they themselves contradict scripture and the received word of God! The more extremist of you heretics will defend them unto extravagant levels of stupidity, contradicting Scripture and historic Christianity.

>>18436399
>And what's more, anon wasn't even invoking him as an authority or that his argument for martyrs' deaths being propitiatory is true.
>But as a witness to a certain understanding of sin being present or even common in antiquity, right or wrong.
Yes, basically. It's undeniable that this understanding of sin and martyrdom were the common, orthodox view, in much of early Christianity, and later developments in Catholic and Orthodox doctrine are continuous with this. These doctrines aren't "medieval myths" as a simplistic Protestant polemic wants you to believe, they have precedence a long way back in the Church.

File: zoomer tradcath.jpg (54 KB, 680x516)

54 KB JPG

>>18436521
>>18436523
I have ignored the rest of your longwinded sophistry (and everyone else has ignored all of it), because I only wanted to see this: how would you react to the direct demonstration that you have abused history and misrepresented it? It is not remarkable, considering your sophistical character, that you simply didn’t. Instead what is here is boasting of your own victory, “treasures, only bear witness to the traditions, customs, and theology of the apostolic teaching, developed and in continuity with the teaching of the Catholic Church”, which is in response to a direct demonstration of the opposite, the material in question actually proves the discontinuity and lack of tradition of Rome. You threw out the red herring of this vainglorious rhetoric and false witness to distract the unwary from noticing you were clearly refuted. The reason you find it so difficult to actually win these arguments is because your religion is false. That is why your expectations and reality are so different, the magisterium lied. The unbroken tradition never existed. You are the flat earthers of theology, and like them you have nothing but sophistry to support your error.
>>18436519
This is another clear example of the aforementioned sophistry. Completely ignoring the fact that Tertullian’s dedicated work on the subject makes no reference to the bishop granting forgiveness. Of course, it is beyond question that the officers of the Church were involved in the process, but that’s not the same thing is it? On the other hand this citation is irrelevant, since 1. This was an extraordinary act of the bishop of Rome alone, for which reason Tertullian mocks his pretense by calling him pontifex maximus and bishop of bishops (titles which he had not yet dared to actually self-apply) and 2. This is a general edict, and not specific absolution of any individual.

(and I’ll just point out the obvious again) Fornication and adultery, the actual subject of On Modesty, are not venial sins

>>18437792
>I have ignored the rest
This is tantamount to concession.

>because I only wanted to see this: how would you react to the direct demonstration that you have abused history and misrepresented it?
You continue to project your insecurities. As I said, from the outset you've not honestly dealt with what has been presented to you. The Fathers have a view of sin and penance that you do not have, because they do not have the view of justification that you have.

>That is why your expectations and reality are so different, the magisterium lied. The unbroken tradition never existed.
Apart from your lies about the teachings of the Church, which are demonstrably in continuity with the teachings of the first Christians, you still have not met the burden on your part. That's because you cannot. That's because the first Christians, the first to read the scriptures and interpret them, the first to pass down the deposit of faith, were not Protestant. To reiterate what John Newman said, if there is one safe truth it is that Protestantism is not the Christianity of history.

>Completely ignoring the fact that Tertullian’s dedicated work on the subject makes no reference to the bishop granting forgiveness
The granting of absolution was an extraordinary act, that was done by extraordinary ministers, coming through the authority of the bishop in the mainstream Church. Absolution did not belong to the Church synaxis, and nothing in Tertullian suggests this. All I intended to demonstrate in my quotation was this.

File: images (3).jpg (45 KB, 424x723)

45 KB JPG

>>18437792
>This was an extraordinary act of the bishop of Rome
Right, because he was a bishop, and bishops in the orthodox Church were believed to have the power of absolving sins and assinging penance. Tertullian disagrees and I'm not disputing this. But Tertullian and the Bishop of Rome or the mainstream, orthodox, Church, are operating off of the same framework of sin, a framework non-Protestant, a framework in direct and demonstrable historical continuity with what has come down in the Catholic (as well as Orthodox) Church. The Protestant viewpoint is not only not in continuity, but mutually exclusive with what the first Christians believed in. Tertullian came to a different view of because he was a rigorist, who became a Monatist, and they invested power through charismatic individuals rather than through the clergy because they had different views about the Church and how it should be a sanctified union of believers. Cyprian wrote On the Lapsed to counter this type of point of view, for in thr aftermath of the Decian persecution those of the laxi party were bypassing the bishops and investing the power of absolution in martyrs and confessors and, subsequently, not operating in the penitential system, which Cyprian thinks is as a form of atonement. What these views simply demonstrate is a shared framework of sin: That there was grave sin that could cause one to lose salvation. And also that if we grant the power of absolution, it is also necessarily connected to some form of satisfaction, and none of the early writers found this contrary to the doctrine of the atonement or downgrading Jesus's work on the cross, which is the premise behind Protestant critiques of Catholic doctrine. You're failing to see the historical picture here, because you are dogmatically committed to a rigid and reactionary theology developed in the 16th century. The reformers were wrong. They did not bring the Church back to its original age. Their project failed.

The local calvinist anon has been goal post moving hard this whole time. It's like he wants OP to prove the early church was exactly like the modern RCC in form and matter and everything but literally nobody thinks this... It's like what Muslims do with the exact word fallacy.

>>18437915
>yes it’s completely different but if you ignore that it’s actually exactly the same
Rome has repeatedly claimed its doctrines are unbroken unanimous traditions btw

>>18437932
Literally every single doctrine in the history of Christianity has been developed it doesn't matter which church you belong to. Your tradition does this too. You can't seem to grasp the concept of doctrinal continuity.

>>18437971
The development hypothesis is something Newman made up because he realized the religion he had embraced was not apostolic. Vatican 1 set him over the age, because he knew it was not what the ancient church had believed or what the medieval church had believed. The “development” you’re talking about is evolution into a substantially different religion. This is the opposite of continuity.