/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>546938

Are you kidding me? It's right there in Mark 9:38-40

>And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.

>But Jesus said, It is good that you forbad him, for outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church.

>For he that is not with us is not a part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church

Go check your Bibles, read it and see!

>>546938

>>546943

>If I have to believe in the trinity to get to heaven, then why did Jesus and the apostles bever write that in scripture? Seems like a huge thing to leave out.

>>546938

Because that would have solved nothing? Everyone already claims to be the church Christ founded.

>>546943

Shit, I gotta convert

>>546944

>never read the Bible

>t. faithlet

>>546949

But he did boi

Ephesians 2:8-9King James Version (KJV)

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

There's literally over a hundred

(I don't agree with all of these but there are some they left out)

http://www.newcovenantbaptist.org/100-bible-verses-on-salvation-by-faith-alone/

>>546944

>when he hasn't read The Bible but wants to look smart

I'm legitimately curious, what other major doctrines do you think were left out of The Bible? Don't double check any of them, just write every one you think isn't in there. Cause the trinity is pretty clearly present in The Bible

>If I have to be part of the body of Christ, the bride of the Son of God, to be saved why did the apostles never write that in Scripture

>>546948

You do understand that the word Trinity is nowhere in the Bible right? Trinity is the name applied to the tripersonal God, Father, Son, and Spirit, which is deduced from the Scriptures in ways that many disagree with

>>546952

Did you even try to read what he said? It's not that the Bible doesn't touch on the doctrines, it's that the language is usually not the same in the Bible as it ends up being in discussion, and doctrine is usually not explicitly stated as necessary to go to heaven. Where can you point to that will disprove his statement? Nowhere if your requiring the specific word Trinity

>>546944

What is John 4-6 Alex.

>>546951

All of these verses and not a single one asserts faith ALONE

Check James 2.24 for me i havent read the Bible

>>546952

i never said it was left out… lmao

The trinity is present in Revelation 1.4 (one example of course)

And do me a favor and remove the comma johanneum from your kjv while we are on the topic.

Orthobro has my back on that the trinity is never explict see >>546958

And so it would be fitting to find doctrines that are subtle in scripture

>>546960

Did you just quote 3 entire chapters?

>>546963

>the word isn't there but the doctrine is

>must interpret rather that be literal

<Baptists confirmed for not being Sola Scriptura

Neat!

>>546970

Hey, man, if you have to interpret it, then it's not sola scriptura. Welcome back to the Church and its traditions! Might want to change your flag.

>>546971

Are you being autistic AGAIN? It's just givi g the doctrine a name. You could say I believe in the three in one but that's to long

>>546972

You're interpreting, rather than taking it literally. That is literally what Catechism is - interpretation of scripture. It can only be sola scriptura if there is no interpretation, but only the literal Word. Baptists believe in the literal Word, sola scriptura, and not man's interpretations.

Ergo, you're not Baptist.

Calling me "autistic" is not an argument.

>>546975

Giving a name to something isn't interpreting it. I didn't "interpret" that my goldfish would be called Mr. Swim, I just named it. We looked at 1 John 5:7, and gave what it taught a name. That's not interpretation.

>>546978

So, you're allowed to interpret and give something a name, but Catholics aren't allowed to do so?

That's got a name. Hypocrisy.

>>546980

What? I'm pretty sure they may have been the ones to give it that name

>>546965

Alright firstly you're quoting Romans 4.5 where Paul is talking about works of the LAW. Aka the laws and ceremonies that God perscribed to the people of Abraham.

Specifically in the context of circumcision. Paul is saying that you don't need to cut off your foreskin to be saved. You don't need to do works of the old law to be saved.

Faith is the foundation of all theological virtues so we need it to be saved as says John 3.16 … but it never says "who has faith alone in him may not perish…" it uses the word believe. This word is different.

See if you read further in John 3.36 where it says " whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever DISOBEYS the Son will not see life, but must endure God's Wrath." It will show that believe is different from faith in biblical terms.

>>546981

Your own OP says very clearly that a name given to interpreted scripture is false because it was done by Catholics; yet you, yourself, interpret scripture and give name to your interpretation.

Hypocrisy.

>>546980

1. Giving something a name isn't interpreting

2. Sola Scriptura doesn't mean "only literal interpretations"

3. The problem with Catholics isn't that they interpret The Bible. The problem is that they add to it. You freely admit that not everything your church teaches is in The Bible, and that sola scriptura is considered a heresy

>>546983

Why do you people respond to hallucinations of what is said? You hallucinated the OP said "a name given to interpreted scripture is false because it was done by Catholics; yet you, yourself, interpret scripture and give name to your interpretation," it doesn't actually say that. Here's what it says, I'll repost it for you:

>If I [OP] have to be apart (sic) of the catholic or orthodox church to go to heaven, then why did Jesus and the apostles bever (sic) write that in scripture? Seems like a huge thing to leave out.

Please take some medication for your hallucinations, it's really becoming a problem on this board

>>546984

LMAO you say catholics add stuff to the bible yet youre the one quoting the comma johanneum at 1 john 5.7

>>546982

>Romans 4:5

he brings up circumcision later.

>John 3:16

then it isn't "he that believeth" so then Jesus lied

>John 3:36

>not using KJV

Get the fuck out

>>546986

1. That's not an addition to The Bible, it's a part of the received text. Removing it is subtracting it from The Bible

2. The official Catholic Bible has it too, they only started removing it recently

>Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in cælo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. (Vulgate)

>And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. (Douay-Rheims)

>>546987

>i dont like context

Works of the law being nullified is one of the themes of Romans

>John 3.16

In fact in the original greek it states "He who is believing" so there goes your OSAS.

Im guessing you really didnt read what i wrote, faith is different than believing. In that believing also implies obedience to God's divine law. And all of the new law of the Gospel.

>John 3 36

Not my fault the scholars who wrote your kjv made an error.

>>546991

>In fact in the original greek it states "He who is believing" so there goes your OSAS.

So you're saying the word of God doesn't exist in English? Okay

>>546996

So you're saying the Word of God in English has authority over the originals? Okay

>>546989

Many ancient authorites do not have the comma johanneum. Like in St. Augustines Homilies on the first epistle of John makes no mention of the clause. So the manuscripts in africa seem to not have it at the time. Which seems unexplained by kjv onlyists.

>>546975

He isn't requiring people to believe and affirm his words as the final authority. The Pope is. So there's your difference.

>>546998

So you're saying you understand the original languages better than your native one? For how else could you contend that they aren't saying the same thing.

>>547003

>Which seems unexplained by kjv onlyists.

Constantius II