/lit/ - Literature

Peter wrote that Paul's writings are Scripture.

>>14375869
And? Peter was also the first Pope and no protestantoid cares about that fact

>>14375866
>protestantoids
Not even a Protestant, but you know Luther and Calvin were OBSESSED with Augustine? Where do you think the two of them got their idea of total depravity? It was literally from Augustine. That crap poisoned Protestantism, you would get persecuted for being an Arminian, not until Methodism showed up did it start picking up, and even today Arminianism is still minority, the majority of Protestant theologians today are Calvinist, it's all Augustine's fault.
>explain me why
Paul is an apostle who knew people that knew Jesus and received instruction directly from them. Augustine was three to four hundred years removed from Jesus, introduced innovations and justified other innovations of the fourth century, you can prove this because a lot of Christian beliefs that by Augustine times were orthodoxy were far from undisputed in the second and third centuries, just read Justin, Clement, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Cyprian, and you will see how much "orthodoxy" really isn't original Christianity.
>>14375878
You might as well say the second bishop of Antioch was the first pope since Peter founded that bishopric too. What does his capacity as bishop have to do with who inherits authority over the entire church? Nothing, papal supremacy wasn't orthodoxy yet in the 250s when Pope Stephen was starting to claim it and Cyprian was refuting him. Rome since the time of Callistus and Zephyrinus was composed of an increasingly corrupt priesthood, Hippolytus called them out for it, Novatian tried to reform it and made a schism, Cyprian didn't accept the schism but he recognized the same ideas as Novatian and tried to resist it in Carthage, but by the time of Diocletian's persecution the Romans were so corrupt the Carthaginians had it. As they saw it (and they have good backing claims), the Donatists did not actually secede from the Church, but rather a rogue self-appointed Bishop of Carthage did, and Rome by communing with him rather than the bishop appointed legally by the Numidian archbishop with 70 other bishops, actually seceded from the true Church. With Constantine's help it managed to pull all the other churches to its side. They left the Body of Christ and Augustine spearheaded the smear campaign against Donatism. The idea that any baptism is valid (Catholic dogma) was at odds with Cyprian and the later Donatists who require baptism to be given by the true church to be valid, and rebaptism to be given to people baptized outside the church (as well as anyone excommunicated from the church). Luther fucking based his very idea of rejecting Catholic priesthood including the pope on the idea that anyone could baptize anyone. You Catholics and Protestants (and Orthodox too while we're at it) are all false Christians.

>>14375952
>the majority of Protestant theologians today are Calvinist
It sure doesn't feel like it.

>>14375952
Based

>>14375970
If you know good Arminian theologians of the 20th century feel free to share. Any time I hear of one, they've been Calvinist. If you exclude the Pentecostals (I mean they barely engage in formal theology work anyway), the only Arminians are Methodists, Holiness, Salvation Army, Churches of Christ/Disciples of Christ, and a minority of Baptists. Most Baptists are Free Grace theology now (a monstrous antinomian soteriology, fucking heirs of Anne Hutcheson and John Nelson Darby even though none of them know it), same goes for the Nondenominationalists. They also got the rapture crap and dispensationalism from Darby and the majority of them don't even know it. Free Grace theology is the combination of Arminian free will with Calvinist incapacity to lose salvation, and the one condition for salvation for them is belief, so you can see why that is antinomian crap.

>>14375985
You are correct. I probably just feel that way as I'm surrounded by Pentecostal and Holiness churches.

Also to be fair one can be both Calvinist and Dispensationalist in the style of John MacArthur. Even most of the early Plymouth Brethren were Calvinist.

>>14376012
For what it's worth, I respect Calvinism more than I do Free Grace. Traditionally, Calvinist epistemology emphasized the outward fruits of salvation: for example, if you were pious or even blessed by God in other ways, it suggested your election. In Anne Hutchinson's time, her idea that you could trust private spiritual experiences to confirm your election was seen as very suspect. Modern Free Grace folks emphasize it a lot more than old Calvinists used to, and they follow Hutchinson's playbook in calling their opponents 'legalists' who think salvation comes through their own works. There's a sermon by Jonathan Edwards where he warns about enthusiasm, and how those spiritual experiences might be misleading. As Jeremiah says, the heart is fickle, so there's that. The point isn't that they can't be authentic, but that people who claim salvation that way but then go around being sinners probably weren't saved after all (on the old Calvinist view). I can respect that.

Jesus didnt personally visit Augustine

>>14376039
Which Christian tradition are you part of exactly?

>>14375866
Uhh. But we Catholics don't believe that Augustin is canon. No one believes that. We just think that he wrote incredibly good theological and spiritual works.

>>14375866

Disclaimer: not a Protestant.

Both are a no as far as I'm concerned. Augustine specifically has nothing to do with Christianity since his ideas are crypto-Buddhist.