Can ones salvation ever be "lost"?

[JustaServant]

Oh dear BT, this is not looking good for you.

Just within a generation we have Justin Martyr’s description of the Mass:

Quote:
St. Justin Martyr - circa 155

On the day we call the day of the sun [Sunday], all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place [the church].

The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits. [The Liturgy of the Word]

When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things. [The homily]

Then we all rise together and offer prayers for ourselves . . .and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation. [Prayers of the Faithful]

When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss. [Sign of Peace]

Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren. [The Offeratory]

He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek: eucharistian) that we have been judged worthy of these gifts. [The Eucharistic Prayer]

When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: ‘Amen.’ [The Great Amen]

When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the “eucharisted” [this is something special… not just bread] bread [Communion], wine and water and take them to those who are absent.

 

[JustaServant]

Yes, really. It is futile because they, like us, differed amongst themselves. Quoting one who believed in the real presence, only to have someone turn around and post ones that argue symbolism, is a waste of time. Thre were ECF who argued against baptism, the trinity, the canon, tradition over scripture and vice-versa, etc. It’s an exercise in selective quotations. Additionally, many of the ECF routinely changed their stanes as later writings reveal a difference of opinion. The classic example is Augustus, who at different points in his life believed the Eucharist to be symbolic, the real presence and what we now call transubstantiation (and yes, he made a distinction as some protstants do today). How is it useful to quote the changing opinions of christians like us from 1500+ years ago?

Find them. I’ll wait.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I don’t believe in the concepts of mortal and venial sins in the catholic sense, so this really holds no weight with me. It’s a very categorical concept that reeks of human construct. The bblical evidence, the few passages that read with a certain mindset could indicate such a concept, are remarkably weak IMO.

Especially when you don’t want to accept what it really means and not what you want it to mean.

What do you do with 1 John 5:16-17

“If anyone sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask and God will give him life for those whose sins is not mortal. There is sin that is mortal. I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin but there is sin which is not mortal.”

I was just looking to post this Third Day

Was Adam saved before his mortal sin? Denying that one commits a mortal sin after entering into the New Covenant is just like listening to the devil all over again - “you will surely not die”.

Mortal sin puts us in spiritual death and we are in need to reconcile with God to be brought back to life again.

 

[JustaServant]

Read the words of Clement of Rome. Some 60 years after the Ressurection:

The Primacy of Peter/Rome:
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1

Apostolic Succession:
Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry (Letter to the Corinthians 44:1

Justification:
Let us therefore join with those to whom grace is given by God. Let us clothe ourselves in concord, being humble and self- controlled, keeping ourselves far from all backbiting and slander, being justified by works and not by words. . . . Why was our Father Abraham blessed? Was it not because of his deeds of justice and truth, wrought in faith? . . . So we, having been called through his will in Christ Jesus, were not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we wrought in holiness of heart, but through faith, whereby the almighty God justified all men. (Letter to the Corinthians 30:3, 31:2, 32:3-4

The Mass:
Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its sacrifices. Blessed are those presbyters who have already finished their course, and who have obtained a fruitful and perfect release (Letter to the Corinthians 44:4-5

 

[BA11]

Shall I go on?

I pray you don’t for the sake of you time and energy.

There’s a reason protestants, catholics and orthodox christians all claim the ECF, and it isnt because one group is substantially brighter or more enlightened than the others. It’s because one, we all see what we want to see even if it’s subconcious and two, every single christian belief can in some fashion be supported by early church writings.

It’s why I choose to derive my beliefs on the bible and take God at his word that those who seek enlightement through his word will obtain it. You can argue for or against using the words of men who had second hand info passed down through centuries and are long since dead, but it will never carry much weight with me because they were just as flawed and sinful as I am.

 

[JustaServant]

Infant baptism?

“And many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples from childhood, remain pure and at the age of sixty or seventy years…” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 15:6

“And when a child has been born to one of them, they give thanks to God [baptism]; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who as passed through the world without sins.” Aristides, Apology, 15

“Polycarp declared, 'Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and Saviour?” Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, 9

He [Jesus] came to save all through himself – all, I say, who through him are reborn in God; infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age. Against Heresies 2:22:4

And from Polycrates a decade later:

“I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord.” Polycrates, Fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, V:24:7

 

[JustaServant]

I pray you don’t for the sake of you time and energy.

There’s a reason protestants, catholics and orthodox christians all claim the ECF, and it isnt because one group is substantially brighter or more enlightened than the others. It’s because one, we all see what we want to see even if it’s subconcious and two, every single christian belief can in some fashion be supported by early church writings.

It’s why I choose to derive my beliefs on the bible and take God at his word that those who seek enlightement through his word will obtain it. You can argue for or against using the words of men who had second hand info passed down through centuries and are long since dead, but it will never carry much weight with me because they were just as flawed and sinful as I am.

You made the statement, a statement proven wrong by REEMS of evidence. It’s not subjective, its concrete.

 

[BA11]

Find them. I’ll wait.

I’ll assume you already have Augustus quotes in support of the real presence, so I won’t bother with those.

“Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? and yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true? For if sacraments had notsome points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, and the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood,’ in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith.”

“But He instructed them, and saith unto them, ‘It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.’ Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth.”

“If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. ‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.”

A point that always needs to be brought up is the paradox of Origen, whom was ardently against the real presence and considered a heretic in his time and yet who is used on other subjects to support catholic beliefs. Things like this reveal just how flawed of an exercise this is.

 

[BA11]

You made the statement, a statement proven wrong by REEMS of evidence. It’s not subjective, its concrete.

Only because you wish it to be so. I’m not sure if you just ignore or have never been presented with the ECF writings that differ from your beliefs, but they exist whether you want them to or not. I don’t put much stock in any of them on either side of the argument because listening to men tell me what to believe is not as God intended.

Ever play that game where one person tells a secret and that secret is passed down from person to person until it reaches the end and the last person reveals what they heard?

 

[R_C]

My opinion is formed by the bible. I pray that God shapes my beliefs as I read his word. I’ve been convicted of more than a few wrong beliefs I had over the years that contradicted scripture.

I consider the words of men just as the bible does: Unreliable and corruptable.

And to argue the uniformity of opinion of the ECF is, at best, historically inaccurate. A thorough analysis reveals just as much disagreement regarding doctrine as we have today. Quoting the ECF is an exercise in futility.

Not as much an exercise in futility as of humbleness, and certainly less than to try to figure things out by ourselves.

John of the Cross - whose writings I do not expect you to have read - thus taught about trusting in ourselves:

In internal thoughts often the adversary introduces himself, forming by suggestion to the intellect concepts and words, and with very subtle and truthful things he precipitates and deludes them. In this way he uses to communicate to some [who are separated from the Church], filling them with ideas and reasonings very subtle, false, and erroneous

On matters of salvation, the novel teaching that does not come from Scripture but from a man who elaborated it and backed it up by cherry-picking Scripture and ignoring those parts that contradict his man-made teaching do not entice me. I stand with the Church, whose teaching is most ancient, solid, backed up by the entire Sacred Scripture, and sustained by the mystical roses of private revelations. This did not come from men, but from the light of the Holy Spirit. To think that many consider that such novelties that “they” deducted from Scripture are more solid and prove that the Church has always been wrong is beyond my ability to comprehend, especially since no heretical doctrine has been left unrefuted by Holy Church - all have been shown to be gravely erroneous and to lead potentially to perdition. Yet some still reject the Church and embrace those or make their own up. If the Church is the body of Christ, the question will always be: “why do you persecute me?”

 

[R_C]

Without even mentioning that those ideas are in direct contradiction with the Gospels inasmuch as we can refute them by quoting equal but opposite statements by Christ and the Apostles. Then again, it does seem to us that Paul and James contradict each other, and unless we read what our Mother the Church has taught, we would be utterly unable to follow the Christian doctrine as one flock…

 

[PJM]

=captainmike;10459389]What does this mean?

GREAT Q!

Putting it back into its context, Paul is explaing the fate of those who willingly choose to Deny God and Abandon His One God; Only One true and complete Faith which is found [quite logically] in the ONLY Church He Christ/ God founded. And YES its biblically proveable].

So anyone who turns their back on God and His One true faith ; in His One True Church puts at SERIOUS risk their SOUL.

Such as person has chosen to SPURN, attack and DENY God Himself. [this IS the ONLY unforgiveable sin.

Eph. 4:30 “And grieve not the holy Spirit of God: whereby you are sealed unto the day of redemption”

Mt. 12: 31 "Therefore I [GOD] say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven.

Part of this denial is the willingness to abandon the sacraments; and therefore God’s Sacramental-grace. Making a return to God; God’s One Faith AND God’s One TRUE church all the more difficult and unlikey [BUT NOT IMPOSSIBLE].

Others who ARE in the State of Grace can pray for such at RISK souls and God’s Mercy might be made manifest through THEM! A retuen although difficult and unlikey is NOT impossible.

The passage is saying “impossible” BUT MEANS EXTREMELY DIFFEICULT AND UNLIKELY. Salvation is ALWAYS a possibility while one is still alive to REPENT and CONVERT.

Paul is using POWERFUL language because of the seriousness of such a FOOLISH and Soul-endangering dicision.

We know ALL of the above is factual because when Paul spoke these words the ONLY “church” in existence was the One Chuch Founded by Jesus Christ and the One Church still in existence today; Christ Own CC! period! [Biblically provable] Further the Teaching Heb. 6:4-8 mentions the sacraments of Baptism; Confirmation and the Most Holy Eucharist and well as the preaching of the [singular] WORD.

God Bless you,
pat/PJM

 

[fred_conty]

Ba11,
Just thinking, if anyone should have been saved it should have been the 12.
Yet about Judas it was said, “Better for that man had he never been born.” (Mk.14;21)

There is also mention in the bible about an unpardonable or unforgivable sin.
Then if one commits this sin, the person would not be saved.

 

[PJM]

=SonSearcher;10459661]If the person doesn’t know it is bad or wrong they are grace with invincible ignorance… but woe to the one teaching the little ones wrong.

Matthew 18:6
6
“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be
better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

Be careful my friend;

God WILL, because God MUST make Judgment basded NOT on:

What we know

What we choose to believe of accept

BUT rather on WHAT He; our Perfect God MAKES POSSSIBLE for us to know.

“invincible ignorance” MEANS “truly not able to have known”

God Bless yo,
pat/PJM

 

[guanophore]

Have thought “I am saved” is not accurate. We are being saved, we will be saved & we are working on our salvation.

I would think one is not “saved” until judged as such. We don’t entirely have salvation; it is a work in process every day. To assume you are entirely “saved” is dangerous - one may slip up big time & sin mortally. Sin is a willful separation from God. We can all still sin at any time. We must choose DAILY to avoid sin.

You are right, we are not “saved” until the day of judgment. There are some aspects of our salvation, such as baptism, which are completed, some that are in process, and some that are yet to come. Sin is still sin, though, even if it is done in ignorance.

Luke 12:48
48 But the one who did not know and did what deserved a beating will receive a light beating.

Sin still causes damage, even if it is unintentional.

Also there is a world of difference between working “on” salvation, and working “out” salvation. When we work “out” our salvation, we do so while moving with the grace of God in which we are sealed. The idea of “working on” it implies that there is something we can do (of ourselves) that will merit our own salvation. It can be very easily misunderstood by our separated brethren.

 

[guanophore]

 I don't believe in the concepts of mortal and venial sins in the catholic sense, so this really holds no weight with me. It's a very categorical concept that reeks of human construct. The bblical evidence, the few passages that read with a certain mindset could indicate such a concept, are remarkably weak IMO.

One has to wonder if you even understand the Catholic Concept of these terms. I am curious to hear your “construct” of what mortal sin is.

Nothing in the Holy inspired Word of God is a “human construct”, most expecially the Apostolic teaching on mortal sin. However, since you come from a faith tradition that is separated from the Apostolic faith, it is understandible that you would not realize this concept is from the Holy Spirit.

 The catholic position only holds up if we assume the following:

1: A drunkard is anyone who gets drunk once after being born again, an idolator is anyone who in a single moment of weakness puts something before God, etc.

No, this assumption is not Catholic, and not accurate.

2: If no to #1, then that a truly born again christian could go out and chronically commit such sins over and over with full knowledge of God's saving grace. I don't believe that to be the case aside from someone who completely abandons their faith altogether willfully.

My dear misinformed sibling in Christ. This is exactly what mortal sin means. One who deliberately and completely abandons their faith, in favor of sin.

The nature of sin has not changed. Sin separates human beings from God.

Anyone who goes out and is constantly committing the sins mentioned dismissed their faith before doing them, otherwise they wouldnt be doing them.

I would stipulate this. Mortal sin, since it is deliberate, is not generally impulsive. People fall into it progressively, as the Apostle teaches:

James 1:14-16
14 But one is tempted by one’s own desire, being lured and enticed by it; 15 then, when that desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and that sin, when it is fully grown, gives birth to death. 16 Do not be deceived, my beloved.

Calvin taught that this passage did not apply to “born again” people, even though it is contained in a letter written to Christians.

Thus I believe my belief still holds. I don’t believe in mortal and venial sense in the one-time sense because it seems to me that Paul isnt calling a one-time drunk a drunkard but rather someone who has abandoned the word and has fallen into drunkeness.

I agree, but James is speaking more singularly. And Jesus was clear that one can sin on one occasion, without having a lifestyle of sin.

  I don't believe committing one of those sins in a particular moment of weakness damns you.

I guess you are calling James a liar, then.

Agreed, we don't do anything. That's the point. Christ bought our salvation for us and hands it out as a free gift. We can do nothing to merit our salvation nor can we "complete" it. We can reject that gift, but once accepted we can't do anything more to add onto the finished work.Our work in Christ is never finished until we are dead. That's entirely different from our salvation.

This position is contrary to the teachings of the Apostles.

God saves us and puts us to work. He doesnt put us to work with the carrot of salvation dangling in front of us. I agree one can choose to walk away entirely through their own free will, but that is different from what you’re talking about.

I agree that it is not a “carrot dangling”, but the works that we are given to do are part and parcel of our salvation. Works are not separated from the same grace that justifies us. If we have saving faith, then it is faith that works. If we are not showing our salvation by our works, then we have a dead faith, that will not save us. It is more like the hand in the glove. The glove cannot act on it’s own, apart from the hand, and the hand (saving faith) animates the glove to action.

 

[guanophore]

Considering that backsliding is different for everyone who is at different points in their walk with God I find it impossible to believe this as an absolue truth. At best, we have to trust God to judge the intent of every backslider and can't simply throw them all under the catholic nortal sin bus.

Yes, it is only for God to judge the heart. And there are many qualities of “backsliding”. However, all “backsliding” is related to a loss of faith, just like Peter walking on water, and then beginning to sink. “Why did you doubt”? He says. When we are in a state of grace (walking in saving faith) we do not sin. When we doubt, we begin to sink.

For instance, a 30-year alcoholic who comes to know God and is saved is very likely to, in a moment of weakness, take a drink or get drunk again. Is that the same as a lifelong christian who has never had alcohol and sddenly just decides to go out and get smashed? Obviously not.

How is that different? We are called not to be drunk.

I'll leave it up to God to judge our hearts and what constitutes walking away for each person.

As we all should, however we are also called to judge with right judgement, especially whether or not we are “in the Lord”. We are given specific criteria by which to do this, among them, the distinction between sins that are mortal, and those that are not.

 

[guanophore]

It's either contrasting sins that have been repented of versus those that have not, or discussing the unpardonable sin (which is technically the same thing, since unrepetance is the mark of blasphemy of the holy spirit).

Sounds like a construct of your human mind, BA11. I find it curious that the successors of the Apostles understood this passage differently than you do. Between you, which view is more likely to be closer to what the Apostles believed and taught? You are free to reject the One Faith that was handed down to us from the Apostles in favor of your human constructs.

The bible clearly describes three types of sins: Those repented of which are forgiven, those unrepented of which are not forgiven and the unpardonable sin, blasphemy of the holy ghost (which is very literally spitting in the face of the holy spirit and rejecting it until your death, marking a lifetime of unrepented sins).

And yet, this does not explain “mortal”, or distinguish it from those that are ok to “pray for”.

The point is that praying for a heart that lacks repetance is useless.

Fortunately for all the rest of humanity, this is a false statement.

The conept of mortal and venial sins contradicts numerous other passages in scripture.

Clearly it contradicts your perception of Scripture.

Luke 12:48
48 But the one who did not know and did what deserved a beating will receive a light beating.

John 19:11-12
11 Jesus answered him, “You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above; therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.”

Those who sin knowingly bear more guilt.

“For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”

These scriptures are not distinguishing between the two. That does not equate to no difference existing. You still have not given a satisfactory response to John’s distinction that there is a sin that can be prayed for, and a mortal sin that cannot. The idea that one cannot pray for an unrepentant person because it does no good is absurd. How would people like Saul of Tarsus ever been converted otherwise? Or are you suggesting the Church was not praying for him?

“For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.”

This is a reference to the Law of Moses.

“The Lord is slow to anger and great in power, and the Lord will by no means clear the guilty.”

Venial sin still needs to be confessed and absolved. No one is suggesting that God “clears the guilty”. Some sins are just more serious than others.

“For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit”

How is this relevant at all? No one is claiming that venial sins, as well as mortal, are not pardoned by tthe blood of Christ.

“And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses”

This is a reference to baptism, in which all sins, original, venial, and mortal are all forgiven.

“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.”

No, but they can JUMP OUT!!!

“For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

This scripture is commonly misapplied to salvation. God loves every person He creates. He so loved the world that He gave HIs only son to save us. But we will both agree that not all will be saved. Being loved by God does not equate to being saved. While we were yet sinners, He died for us. He loves us so much He allows us to walk away from Him.

Romans 7:14–25 describes the struggles all believers will have with sin, and follows it with "“There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”

Yes. To be "in Christ Jesus’ means to be in a state of grace. Sin separates us from God. When we are in sin, we are not “in Christ Jesus”.

 

[guanophore]

Unless you are born again you will be subjected to the second death. The argument of mortal vs venial is like saying I only have a little terminal cancer vs I have a lot of terminal cancer and that one will not ultimately lead to death.

It is a fact that unconfessed and unrepentant venial sins will eventually lead to mortal sin. Small sins lead to bigger ones, and sin is most definitely a cancer.

The Apostle lists some of these, referring to “gangrene” then admonishes:

2 Tim 2:21-22
1 All who cleanse themselves of the things I have mentioned will become special utensils, dedicated and useful to the owner of the house, ready for every good work.

We have a responsibility to avoid these sins, and when we fall into them, repent and confess.

The only distinction God makes is hat some sin will merit greater punishment in hell than others for those who do not repent.

It seems that you have missed out on a few scriptures.

Nowhere in the bible does anyone suggest that unrepetant sin is not damning, no matter how small.

No one has claimed otherwise.

In contast, it is littered with verses describing how believers will continue to fall short and how there is no damnation for those who believe and cry out for forgiveness.

This point is not under contention.

You have misunderstood the Catholic faith.

My opinion is formed by the bible. I pray that God shapes my beliefs as I read his word. I've been convicted of more than a few wrong beliefs I had over the years that contradicted scripture.

I am not denying that we can be enlighted by the Holy Spirit when reading the Bible. But divine inspiration is not the only factor in forming our opinions. We get them from our experiences, and our education (or lack of it).

Your opinions clearly have been formed outside of the Apostolic Tradition, and contaminated by heresies of the Reformation. I am glad you are praying that God will shape your beliefs. One way to have this prayer answered is to read the Scriptures from the point of view of the faith that produced them. This means understanding them through the One Faith, deposited once for all to the Church by the Apostles.

I consider the words of men just as the bible does: Unreliable and corruptable.

If this were really true, then you would not cling to so many human opinions so stringintly.

And to argue the uniformity of opinion of the ECF is, at best, historically inaccurate.

No one has claimed to do this either. The claim is that the One Faith is uniform and historically accurate. To the extent that the Fathers adhere to it, they write in the infallible teachings of the Apostles. To the extent they do not, they depart from the One Faith.

A thorough analysis reveals just as much disagreement regarding doctrine as we have today.

This is a falsehood.

Quoting the ECF is an exercise in futility.

It may be, where you are concerned, BA. It may be that your “opinions” are of more value to you that the actual history of the faith you claim to espouse.

 

[SonSearcher]

Yes, really. It is futile because they, like us, differed amongst themselves. Quoting one who believed in the real presence, only to have someone turn around and post ones that argue symbolism, is a waste of time. Thre were ECF who argued against baptism, the trinity, the canon, tradition over scripture and vice-versa, etc. It’s an exercise in selective quotations. Additionally, many of the ECF routinely changed their stanes as later writings reveal a difference of opinion. The classic example is Augustus, who at different points in his life believed the Eucharist to be symbolic, the real presence and what we now call transubstantiation (and yes, he made a distinction as some protstants do today). How is it useful to quote the changing opinions of christians like us from 1500+ years ago?

Dude, yes they argued…that is what the councils were for. Arguments became agreements. The ones who couldn’t agree were out…because they chose to dissent and become heretical.

Have you ever heard of Arius?

Cuz St Nicholas (Bishop of Myra)…yeah that one… slapped him in the face for blaspheming Jesus as God at the Council of Nicea. Arius was arguing that God the Son was not equal to God the Father.

It is quite similar to you arguing established Catholic doctrine, Tradition that has existed since Jesus was on planet earth.