/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>553563

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Romans 3:28

>>553569

With historical context that verse was clearly condemning Mosaic Law, not canon Law. Paul was railing against Judaizers..

>>553571

John 3:16

>>553563

You claimed to base your doctrine on something you hadn't even read yet? I find that strange. Why would you do that?

Anyway, if Christ's word leads you to His church, then all the better for you having read it.

>qoute

Now she's burning in there

Also

Salvation by faith alone

John

1

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

3

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

4

14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

5

24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

6

28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

7

38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

8

24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

11

25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

27 She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.

12

46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.

14

1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

16

27 For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.

20

31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

OSAS

6

37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

10

27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

14

1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

And that's just with the book of John

>>553571

>justified by faith

>What he really meant was faith and keeping the law

>>553576

"For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead."

"But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?"

"Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect?"

"Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?"

>>553571

>With historical context that verse was clearly condemning Mosaic Law, not canon Law

No, Paul is not condemning any law, Paul is condemning justification by any works of the entire law. Including the decalogue. See, for example, how he defines works of the law in Galatians 3:10

< For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.”

The quotation is from Deuteronomy 27. Go read that chapter and tell me, is that the mosaic law, or the moral law?

>>553577

>another episode of a Catholic quoting James 2 without understanding it

Unsure if jesuit thread

>ctrl+f bible for "faith alone"

>1 result for "faith alone"

>"As you can see, a man is justified by his deeds and not by faith alone."

>>553580

>>553581

Does a dead faith save?

>>553589

>Jesus and the apostles were wrong

>>553590

>he thinks James 2 is justified to God

>Jesus was lying when be said "whosoever believeth on me hath everlasting life"

>>553594

Yes. Jesus said "whosoever believeth"

>>553583

>the church need[s] you

Doesn't sound like a real church of Christ, when it needs its followers and not the sole premise from the mouth of God himself that the gates of hell should not prevail against it.

Maybe it's that believers need the church and not the other way around.

>>553597

So why does inspired scripture make that distinction while also mentioning elsewhere that some branches are grafted onto the good vine while others are cut and cast into the fire?

>>553596

Jesus: "If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”

>>553607

Yes, if you keep every commandment you will go to Heaven. But that's not possible to keep them all.

>>553604

1. That's a parable not a clear statement

2. when it talks about fruit it's people that are saved or unsaved

>>553578

>For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God.

1 Corinthians 7:19

It's clear that the moral law has never been phased out. The 10 commandments predate the mosaic law anyways, so how could a cancelling of the mosaic law cancel something that isn't a part of them?

>>553615

So people can lose their salvation, seeing as some were born into the vine but then cut down, right?

>>553618

If we are assured salvation by faith only

if a man murders 20 people, shows not repentance but believes in God and accepts Jesus as his Lord and Saviour would he be saved?

>>553624

*shows no repentance

>>553621

James 2 is justified to man. Like how it says in James 2 Abraham was justified after he would kill his son but in Romans 4 it says it he was justified to God BEFORE being circumcised. So it has to mean to man and in Genesis 15 it says he believed on God and it counted him as righteous.

Also that it was about someone trying to prove their faith to other people

>>553629

Right so your argument is that no matter what actions a person commits they can, without repentance, enter heaven?

Does that not contradict Apocalypse 21:27:

"There shall not enter into it any thing defiled, or that worketh abomination or maketh a lie" ?

>>553607

Jesus: "What is impossible with man is possible with God"

>>553612

> Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

>whosoever believeth in him

>whosoever believeth in him should not perish

>He that believeth on him is not condemned

>He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life

All of this describes living faith. Someone with dead faith does not truly "believeth"

>1 Corinthians 7:19

Consider the context

<Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches. Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision.

In light of this it is clear that in this verse "circumcision" and "uncircumcision" are not actions, they are states of being. His point is it doesn't matter what you are, all God wants is that you keep the commandments.

>It's clear that the moral law has never been phased out

You are correct, it was never phased out, and neither was the mosaic law. Men will go to hell for eating pork. What has happened is that men by faith in Jesus Christ die to the law, so they are no longer judged under the law but under the law of liberty. This is why Jesus says "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" and Paul says "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus".

>The 10 commandments predate the mosaic law anyways

That's a good point, and further part of how we know "works of the law" includes the moral law, since immediately after telling us how a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law, Paul tells us Abraham was justified by faith apart from works.

>>553634

meant to link >>553616

>>553634

>All of this describes living faith. Someone with dead faith does not truly "believeth"

>When he said believe what he really meant was do works

>>553563

Tbh I was a Catholic but now I am unsure and leaning Baptist.

>>553636

Yes, it says that no immoral and unrepentent people will enter heaven, only those righteous.

>>553638

>>When he said believe what he really meant was do works

No, He really meant believe, what He didn't mean was tip your fedora to God as you walk by.

>>553640

And since there is none righteous save Jesus Christ, a man must by Jesus Christ to God to be saved.

>>553640

>only the righteous

Romans 4:5

But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

>his faith is counted for righteousness.

And are you seriously saying you have never lied?

>>553643

Do you even know what "believe" means?

>>553645

In this context it means "to trust".

>>553615

>Yes, if you keep every commandment you will go to Heaven. But that's not possible to keep them all.

Source?

>>553648

Luke 18:27

>>553644

It says clearly:

None that are immoral (ie unrepentant sinners) may enter heaven, only those who righteous, that is only those who are repentant of sins, charitable, die in a state of grace and so forth.

>>553647

Well yeah you trust on Jesus to save you. Trust doesn't mean works

>>553649

Soooo…. it is possible to do it with God, then.

>Those who heard this asked, “Who then can be saved?”

>Jesus replied, “What is impossible with man is possible with God.”

>>553648

Romans 3

>>553655

Yeah, I read that but nowhere does it says it's impossible to not sin.

>>553652

It doesn't mean mental assent either

>>553653

That means that it is possible for God to do it. It means that God has come down out of heaven to do that which we could not.

>>553657

>That means that it is possible for God to do it.

But it says "WITH God" not "FOR God".

>>553650

Stop adding to God's word. It says he that is in the book of life

Revelation 3:5King James Version (KJV)

5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

So if you over cone you will never be blotted out. Here is what overcome means

4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

>>553656

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

>>553660

It still doesn't say it's impossible not to sin. Even if most or all people are actively sinning, it doesn't say it's impossible for them to stop.

>>553658

There is a direct parallel between "impossible with man" and "possible with God". Since "impossible with man" means impossible for man, not impossible with man's help, "possible with God" means possible for God, not possible with God's help.

>>553670

>it would be saying that only God can be saved.

Yes that's exactly what it's saying. God came down from heaven to be saved, so that all those who are united to Him can be saved with Him.

>>553589

No, the church just gradually drifted away from the truth over the centuries, and that's why a cleansing of the faith was necessary.

>>553687

If faith was so damaged that there was need of faith reform that means that Christianity is not divine.

Also, when was faith corrupted? Because by time of Justin apologies all core disagreements between any form of protestantism and Catholicism are setted as obviously Catholic.

>>553696

Thankfully only one of those is true.

>No one reads the Bible and concludes pic related in their head.

I did. Fathers did. Theologians did. 2000 years of body of faithful did.

>>553699

>If faith was so damaged that there was need of faith reform that means that Christianity is not divine

Not if the bare essentials remained

>Also, when was faith corrupted?

He already told you

<over the centuries

>Because by time of Justin apologies all core disagreements between any form of protestantism and Catholicism are setted as obviously Catholic.

stop reading the cherrypicked quote mines on CatholicAnswers

>>553563

>Evidence for Roman Catholicism as apostolic

Hahahah! They barely have evidence for the basics of their dogmas!

http://www.graceway.com/articles/article_017.html

http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2013/10/the-early-church-did-not-believe-romes.html

https://www.michaeljkruger.com/were-early-churches-ruled-by-elders-or-a-single-bishop/

http://www.apuritansmind.com/justification/the-early-church-and-justification-compiled-by-dr-c-matthew-mcmahon/

https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/theology/general-christian-topics/doctrine-questions/4703746-2-thessalonians-2-15

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/alexander_a/canon.iii.v.html

https://bible.org/seriespage/8-grace-god-part-i-ephesians-15-12-21-10

http://justforcatholics.org/a84.htm

https://onefold.wordpress.com/category/sacred-tradition/

https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/visible.html

http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc09/htm/iv.v.lxxiv.html

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.x.xi.html

>>553687

Then Christ was wrong. And if He was wrong, how could He be the Son of God? The RCC is the true church, accept it and repent.

>>553691

Literally nothing wrong with this flowchart

This thread is going to be locked until I've cleaned it up.

I have reopened the thread. Remain charitable and civil. Failure to do so will lead to a ban, no matter what flag you post under.

>>553703

>Not if the bare essentials remained

How we get saved is as essential as it gets.

>He already told you

"Over the centuries" is not anserw

>stop reading the cherrypicked quote mines on CatholicAnswers

I've read DIdache. I've read letter of Barnabas. I've read letters of Ignatius. I've read Clement. I've read Justin apologies.

>>553704

>Bishop White

lol

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2009/08/contra-catholicism-featuring.html

Proof such as…?

>>553755

The Catholic view on salvation is the Lutheran view under a lot of complication and added clauses and caveats that can lead someone astray and focusing on the wrong things. We do not believe that there is no salvation outside the Lutheran church.

With "over the centuries" I mean a gradual development, an Immaculate Conception of Mary dogma here, a Storehouse of Merit dogma there, and before you know it, there is a huge pile of false or unfounded theology that must be believed because The Church Says So, the infallibility of the church having been one of the new dogmas. Meanwhile the Bible remained the same, true to the roots of Christianity. This is the reason for sola scriptura. Human tradition is too easily corrupted, but the written word, spread all over the place, endures.

>>553578

>>553571

>Paul says faith alone

>James says faith with works

Real talk: James and Paul were two different men with two different opinions. I don't think it matters. Both parties agree that you're supposed to repent when you do something wrong, right?

>>553563

>evidence

Cuck. You'll probably end up calling Him Yeshua instead of Jesus. If there's a Catholic Church in your area, go for it. If not, the support the organization you have.

>>553793

>Real talk: James and Paul were two different men with two different opinions.

Dude. It does matter.

2 Timothy 3:16-17

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

2 Peter 1:20-21

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

>>553795

>The interpretation most often found in the commentaries suggests James meant to say that faith without works is inauthentic or fake, i.e., we know that we have a fake faith if we have no works.

>But if that’s what James meant to say, he chose a bad metaphor. Has anyone ever looked at a dead body and concluded it must be fake? On the contrary, when we see a dead body, don’t we think about how it was once alive and we wonder how it died? That’s what James is doing here. He’s explaining how a living faith can die.

>Without works, our faith is unprofitable or useless (Jas 1:26; 2:16). If you believe that we ought to love our neighbors and give to the poor, but you don’t actually act on those beliefs, then your faith is of no use to anyone. We are given the Word in order to be doers of it (Jas 1:22).

https://faithalone.org/grace-in-focus-articles/justification-by-works-for-baptists/

This is actually pretty convincing. Wtf I'm using the Baptist flag now.

>>553801

I was just posting about this today actually, I don't wanna retype it all but have a look >>553555

>>553788

>We do not believe that there is no salvation outside the Lutheran church.

don't you believe there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church or do you believe salvation can he found outside of Christ (which is the Catholic Church)

>Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.

>Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh.

>This is the reason for sola scriptura. Human tradition is too easily corrupted, but the written word, spread all over the place, endures.

Amen Amen Amen ( I added that third Amen, because even with two people might misunderstand and think I'm being metaphorical)

human tradition is easily corrupted. we see an example of that in the Lutheran church. If the Lutherans of 500 years ago saw what their church became, they would weep and repent. Lesbian clergy? contraception? isn't the church supposed to sanctify the world? how can one Bible lead to 40,000 denominations?

Meanwhile in the one holy apostolic Catholic Church, we have believed the same things for 2000 years and the Holy Spirit guides the Church. Oriental Orthodox split from us 1600 years ago and the Eastern orthodox split 1000 years ago, yet we have common ground for discussion.

Want to see the proof? Catholics are in their worst crisis, with traitorous bishops, cardinals and priests who work directly for Satan and cannot change dogma. They are trying with all their efforts, but to no success.it is because the church is Christ's bride. they can't change the dogma, even if they hold great power, because God does not permit it, so they do not teach the faith and lead the sheep astray and try to implement disciplines that negate the teachings. that is what is happening in the Catholic Church today.

>>553615

(Bapt 5:1-2)

>1. That's a parable not a clear statement

>2. when it talks about fruit it's people that are saved or unsaved

(Mat 7:15-20)

>15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

>16 By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

>17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

>18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit.

>19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire.

>20 Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.

here are more parables said by our blessed Lord which you can disregard to your damnation.

fruit represent sanctity and true doctrine, not some nonsense about saved and unsaved people. good people will be holy and have true doctrine. and if you are a person and you don't bring forth good fruits ( or bring forth bad fruit) you will be cut down from the vine (see the parable of the vine). Which means you will commit a mortal sin and be separated from God. You will not have life in you. Afterwards (if you have not been grafted back on/given Life by God with his infinite mercy in the confessional) you will be thrown into that furnace which burns for eternity.

Baptist poster I ask that you please read the Gospel according to St. Matthew. Read our blessed Lords words.

>>553840

>Baptist poster I ask that you please read the Gospel according to St. Matthew. Read our blessed Lords words.

I literally read the entire thing in one days time two days ago. And the Mattew 7 one again is about good or bad prophets either getting people saved or leading tem away.

You should truly reading John some time

John

1

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

3

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

4

14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

5

24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

6

28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

7

38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

8

24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

11

25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

27 She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.

12

46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.

14

1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

16

27 For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.

20

31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

>>553835

So you're saying he lied whan he said John 6:47. And I never said he lied in James 2 you retard.

>>553757

http://www.baptistdeception.com/overview-of-the-ifb-church/#.WgZdGFtSzIU

>>553801

>This is actually pretty convincing

Why? It hinges upon "save" being non-soteriological, something which is given no exegetical support whatsoever and is merely asserted (even though this would require a great deal of exegetical work). It then gives the section you quoted from, which is horrendous argumentation. For example

<But if that’s what James meant to say, he chose a bad metaphor. Has anyone ever looked at a dead body and concluded it must be fake? On the contrary, when we see a dead body, don’t we think about how it was once alive and we wonder how it died? That’s what James is doing here. He’s explaining how a living faith can die

James did not pick a "bad metaphor" because he is comparing faith and works to the spirit and body. The "death" metaphor must be understood in light of this. He is saying that just as a body without the spirit might retain the names of that person, it is not actually that person, that person has moved on. Likewise, faith which does not work, though it might retain the names of faith (including 'faith') is not true faith at all. Hence why he says in verse 18 says "But someone will say, 'You have faith and I have works.' Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works". What's his point? They can't show their faith apart from works because it doesn't exist. Further with its butchery of the text, it says

<Without works, our faith is unprofitable or useless (Jas 1:26; 2:16). If you believe that we ought to love our neighbors and give to the poor, but you don’t actually act on those beliefs, then your faith is of no use to anyone

The problem, of course, being that it is unprofitable to the person, not others. The object of "save" in verse 14 is "someone says he has faith but does not have works".

So James' point is not that true faith can die, but that true faith is not dead. Then it says Paul means one thing by justification and James another. In a sense that's true, in that they speak of the same thing from a different angle. What Paul speaks of is actual justification, what James is talking about is public justification. Verse 22 says "You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works". His faith was completed (or 'perfected') by his works because it was proven genuine. That is, his actual justification before God was declared publicly to men. Of course, in reality, both James and Paul talk about justification before God, but while Paul talks about how to attain it, James talks about how to recognize it. This is why he says "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone", "faith" being profession of faith, as it is so defined in verse 14 at the start of the passage. So in conclusion James does not contradict Paul, he simply tells us that if someone claims to be a Christian, but that claim is the extent of their evidence for the claim, the claim is false.

>>554814

>Compare that to Mexico, a Catholic country with over twice the population yet only 1/7th of the Cardinals.

I'd restrict the amount of Cardinals in Mexico to considering I know how they're unorthodox. For starters, that Lady Death business imported form their old religion.

>>554814

>So?

So the bible can't be changed by majority vote, but its implementation by living men sure can. Don't forget it's the Church who made the bible, not the other way around.

>we need mo cardinals fo dem programs

Should every baptized person vote in the papal elections? That's worked so well for secular states I don't see why it's not been tried by the Church too.

Faith Alone

John

1:12

3:15-16/18/36

4:14(John 6:35)

5:24

6:28-29/35/37/38-40/44-45/47

7:38-39

8:24

10:27-29

11:25-27/40

12:46

14:1-3

16:27

20:31

Matthew

5:19

7:21-23

8:10-13

9:21-22

12:50

Mark

1:15

2:5

5:34

10:24-25

16:16

Romans

1:16-17

3:20/22/24-25/26/27/28/30

4:2-9/11/14-16/24

5:1/15-18

6:23

9:30-32

10:3-4/9-10/13

11:6

Colossians

1:22-23

2:11-12

Ephesians

1:13-14

2:8-9

4:7

Galatians

2:16/21

3:6-11/14/21-22/24/26

5:3-6

Titus

3:5

Hebrews

4:3

10:38-39

11:7

1 Peter

1:5/8-9

3:21(Colossians 2:12)

1 John

3:9/23-24

4:2-3/15

5:1/4-5/10-11/13

Revelation

2:7/11/17/26

3:5/12/20-21

21:7/27

>>554818

So then for every Catholic country with a larger Catholic population and less cardinals than Italy its because they're in some way out of line with the Catholic church?

>>554819

>Should every baptized person vote in the papal elections?

The other anon had an actual point while you just throw fallacies.

>>554826

I've honestly never heard anybody complain about the distribution of voting cardinals before and I've found it funny, not every post is 100% serious business

>>554819

>So the bible can't be changed by majority vote, but its implementation by living men sure can

You mean living men can vote to stop implementing the bible

>Don't forget it's the Church who made the bible, not the other way around

It was God who made both

>>554855

>It was God who made both

God is the ultimate cause of the bible but it's still been written by men, just thought I'd point that out

>>554976

>sweden

Doesn't count

>>555046

Christ had Judas as a disciple, and the others were not perfect. to expect His church to be sinless and perfect is misguided. rebellious priests leading people to Hell are nothing new, it's been happening since the first day.

The difference between the Lutheran Church and the Catholic Church, is in the Catholic Church they have to go around the teaching, disregard it and try to negate it. While in the Lutheran Church, the error is taught as dogma.

why do you spend your time looking on ways to attack, while you have women clergy and much more in your church?

Watch this video, it might help you find the true Church.

>>555012

third pic, America. moreover, discounting them is not just. They have the same Bible, they have the same "Holy Spirit", and they are "saved through faith alone".

>>554976

I'm so glad I found a Confessional Lutheran church around me, ELCA seems more and more like cancer every day

>>555067

>they have the same "Holy Spirit", and they are "saved through faith alone".

1 John 2:19

>>555122

Legit question about apparitions being demons.

How could they? Every single apparition, so it seems, declares Jesus as Lord. I suppose there isn't a verbatim "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh" as per 1 John 4, but it still seems incredibly un-demonlike, considering we know for a fact that Satan cannot stand against himself. Being Protestant, I'm still quite far from believing in the apparitions, but this comes across as a lot more than a mere disguise as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11) to me.

>>555142

Apparitions are judged by their fruits, the people involved, the message, the miracles, and if they.conform with the truth.

To give you an example of an apparition sent from God;

the apparitions at Fatima prophesied many things, the three children became very holy and lived lives of repentance, the message of Fatima was repentance and fear of hell and devotion to the immaculate heart of Mary. The children were threatened with death, intimated and bullied to say that they lied yet kept their story.

And an example of either charlatans or demonic apparition;

Medjurgoje is a circus act, which claims to call down the mother of God at specific times. Surrounding it is a Serbian crime ring and suspicious people. The story isn't very coherent. The messages are about religious indifference. Many people are converted because of Medjurgorje or had their faith renewed, but I think once they learn it's fake it will destroy their faith.

Long series about Fatima, but it's worth it. Even the atheist Freemasons confirmed the miracle of the sun.

>>553926

Nice article, but here are a few issues I will raise with some parts of it:

>those often referred to as

Baptists Briders”, infer they can trace their history back to John the Baptist who was the first Baptist.

I'm not one. I can trace the history of my church to Christ the same way and by similar reasoning I can trace the history of my blood to Adam.

>In examining many so-called early “Baptist” churches you find many doctrinal errors and false teaching.

Are you really examining them, or are you limited to examining historical records left behind of them?

>However, let me strongly say there has always existed an unbroken line of churches who have not erred from the faith, and been true to the Bible, God’s Word.

That much is obvious.

>Most of the Anabaptists successors became the Mennonites, Amish and Quakers.

An anabaptist in the historical sense, as used by those who originally gave them that theologically inaccurate name back in the 4th or 5th century, is anyone who held to either or both of the doctrines:

-Requirement of believer's baptism by immersion for baptism to be valid

-Automatic non-validity of baptism administered by Catholic or any other non-New Testament churches

We see a quote from a Catholic Cardinal in 1563 which mentions "the Anabaptists who, so we read, were pronounced heretics twelve hundred years ago." We also see records of laws in the early 5th century punishing "rebaptizers" generally, which were dealt with broadly, in contrast to other specific laws made against subsets of this broad group such Novatians or Donatists. Those specific laws, by the way, were all done away with, except for the general law against "rebaptizers" requiring the death penalty for both parties, which was specifically reinstated in the next century by Justinian.

With all this in mind, it is not accurate to limit your historical definition of Anabaptist to the Mennonites, considering that it was originally a term used to denote anyone who was (incorrectly) considered by the catholics to have rebaptized. Whether or not they were actually "Baptistic," the charge was used broadbrush against our independent churches and against schismatics alike.

Furthermore, our churches would never have accepted this title for themselves. It was slapped onto us and many other disparate groups, and especially after the events of the Munster rebellion, "anabaptism" became a charge of great infamy for which countless innocent Christians were burned. Despite this non-acceptance of the charge of being rebaptizing, our churches were among those labeled as such. Baptist is a better name since we baptize once.

>A true New Testament church bases its faith, practice and authority solely in the Word of God. To hold to the “secessionist” position takes the authority away from the New Testament and places it in the hands of man.

This is not a doctrinal belief required by anyone to be held. It's just an observed fact. The practice and authority is exclusively from the unchanged word of God. But it can also be shown that the authority to send out new churches has been legitimately passed down and received through earlier churches which, as the article said, have always existed. The Scriptures leave no room to doubt this is so, but it's not a core belief such as salvation by grace through faith.

>There is every value in appealing only to present adherence to the New Testament as one’s sole authority for faith and practice.

I think there is value in defending the fact we have always existed. Not used as a basis for our authority, but simply as a matter of fact.

>It began with a man named John Smyth who was a bishop in the Church of England.

That was the start of confessional Baptists.

>These first Baptist churches formed in England were Armenian in theology,

It's spelled Arminian, and they were the earliest confessional Baptists. The first organized Baptist denominations generally were started back in 1523 in Switzerland (after a break with Zwingli) and they weren't the origin of their ideas either. Before that there are independent churches with the same beliefs to be found not only in Scotland and England as the article says, but also in ancient Holland, Germany, Switzerland and Wales. This much is already known from history.

The attempt to start a political movement of churches working in organized association has more than once led independent churches into starting political movements called denominations. The sacerdotal catholic one is merely the oldest surviving of them, unless you want to count gnostics who keep reappearing. The problem is their confessions and personalities seep into their doctrine and over time schisms become inevitable because these confessions aren't preserved eternally like the word of God is, nor does the Holy Spirit guide you understand the original intended meaning of them like He does with the Bible. So it's only a matter of time before a denomination will schism, which is how Cathodox ended up as it did. Because it was meant to be independent churches under the word of God as we find in the Bible, who are given the Spirit, by Whom those who believe and are saved can receive the correct interpretation of the word.

>>555373

Imagine being so full of yourself you can't bring yourself to respect the most devout human being in history

>>553569

"The law" does not refer to all good works conceivable. It refers specifically to the Law of Moses. Paul here is not arguing against the necessity of doing good works out of love, hope and charity, but rather against Judaizers who wanted to import the Law of Moses into Christianity.

>>553580

The words are right there, in plain English. Who can fail to understand it?

Your own favorite Apostle Paul also calls love greater than faith (1 Corinthians 13:13).

>>555376

>>553578

>>555427

>living humans and glorified saints are exactly the same, no difference at all

You continue to find me in complete agreement, fellow Christian

>>555427

>Fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum.

God used Mary in salvation history, why would He stop when she's in heaven? She's His most perfect creation and God loves to exalt those who make themselves low(Mt23:12). He uses everyone of us to work good and save people, that includes the people in the church triumphant, militant, suffering (even souls outside of it.).

Ad Iesum per Mariam.

>>555551

>why would He stop when she's in heaven

Does He need to be born when she's in heaven?

>God loves to exalt those who make themselves low

I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images.

Isaiah 42:8

>>555554

wtf I'm a bautist now

>>555554

could you tell us why you hate the blessed.Virgin Mary and our blessed Lords church?

>>555404

The Virgin Mary does for Christ on his second coming, what John the Baptist did on the first. Announce it and admonish the faithful not to lose faith in Him.

>>555404

It's idolatry, so we rightly abstain. The Lord rebuke them.

>>555573

>could you explain to me why i have such a stiffie for strawmen

doesn't work this way

>>556135

would you say A man who quotes from the words of God to try and contradict what Jesus said to spite the mother of God

loves, hates, or is indifferent to the mother of God?

I quoted this

>For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

then he had no argument against the truth, so he tried to twist Scripture and quoted this

>I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images.

Isaiah 42:8

>>555046

Out at Saint Paul is one faggy fb group/book club that gets 3 likes at best per post.

That's really reaching when comparing to a multi-country mega faggot reformed church

>>555181

>Medjurgoje

I know a mother that swears by Medjurgoje, has seen wonders (that she won't share), and returns every year. It is really catching on as a apparition and claims to be the last one.

However after an hour of looking into it it does seem to be a real circus, maybe its origins were pure but not now.

But then again I've never been, I find it difficulty to disagree with someone who has gone and had a life changing experience.

>>556346

the Latin is saying the same as in the English in your picture.

BTW I don't think someone starts a phrase with amen amen when they're trying to be figurative.

>>555122

>Jesuits

Pope Clement XIV had the right idea.

>>556171

>>For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

That doesn't mean what you think it means, it means those who are prideful will be cut down but those who know their weakness will be raised up in the kingdom of God. It doesn't mean go ahead and worship dead saints, God does not exalt creatures to a level of praise or devotion.

>so he tried to twist Scripture and quoted this

That scripture directly contradicts your claim that God exalts creatures to a position of saviorhood

>protestants pass on

>day of judgement

>first thing they see is Christ; second thing they see is the Blessed Mother and all the angels and saints

>Christ: "Well?"

>>556272

>I would like to hear a Catholic try to defend the above, because it's so opposed to the most basic elements of Christianity. (Do I even need to enumerate the ways?) Yet the Vatican has approved of this apparition.

Please enumerate the ways. Every thing the Blessed Mother has proscribed here is in veneration of Christ.

Do you really think we just sit there worshiping Mary? Or perhaps - just possibly - we reflect on the pain and passion of Christ on the Cross as His own mother watches? The sacrament of Penance is given to us through Christ. The sacrament of Communion is given to us through Christ. The Rosary is a reflection on the Passion of Christ. And the Blessed Mother promises to give special intercession at the hour of our death.

Your venom against the Mother is disgusting; but you'll answer to her Son about that.

>>556298

>I find it difficulty to disagree with someone who has gone and had a life changing experience

God can reap good work out of anything Satan or man does.

For my own part, I believe Medjurgoje is not an authentic apparition. There have been reports also of evil spirits toiling around the area. I believe the children behind it probably faked it.

>>556788

>God does not exalt creatures to a level of praise or devotion.

oh ok makes sense

>And the angel came in to her, and said, Hail, [thou] favoured one! the Lord [is] with thee: [blessed art thou amongst women].

>And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

>But he said: Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it.

>And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars:

>And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done.

If you have ears to hear, then comprehend.

When God exalts Mary, God is glorified!

>be it done to me according to thy word.

That is the motto of Mary. God's most perfect creation rejects herself and adopts the will of God instead. This glorifies god. There is no worship of saints, we ask them to ask the Lord for favors or to be merciful to us. Asking is praying, but only that praying has taken a religious significance due to it's use over the centuries.

>>556298

>I find it difficulty to disagree with someone who has gone and had a life changing experience.

Then you need to be careful, because plenty of pagans have had life-changing experiences, and there is only one Truth. when she finds out that Medjugorje is a fraud (which it will be declared soon by the Vatican), most likely, her soul will become distressed and she will doubt consider the apparitions frauds and the Catholic church a bunch of mumbo-jumbo which deceived her. the Catholic faith does not rely on emotional experiences.

>>557045

>When God exalts Mary, God is glorified

<I will not give My glory to another

>God's most perfect creation rejects herself

Then what appeared at Fatima was not God's most perfect creation but a demon, since "devotion to the immaculate heart of Mary" is not self-denial.

>There is no worship of saints, we ask them to ask the Lord for favors or to be merciful to us. Asking is praying, but only that praying has taken a religious significance due to it's use over the centuries.

I'm sick of this argument. It's disingenuous and unbecoming of a Christian. You cannot take any Marian prayer and honestly compare it to a prayer request.

>>556795

>Your venom against the Mother is disgusting; but you'll answer to her Son about that.

His sincere doubt about your claims and your version of Mary isn't intended as an attack on Mary but it is an attack on your pride because you came up with all this stuff out of your own imagination. It's not in the Bible. You are the attacker on Mary for making stuff up, making up your own version of her, and saying to believe you is exalting God is what is really twisted and sick.

>>557045

>There is no worship of saints

Yes, there is. This is just an excuse, nothing more. It's open worship.

Someone post the Martin Luther pic with him being given the keys of heaven. >>557128 really needs it.

>>557132

Someone should make it of Steven Anderson instead of Luther.

Or John the BAPTIST(not catholic)

And I say also unto thee, That thou art John the BAPTIST, and upon this rock I will build my Independent Fundamental BAPTIST Churches; and the gates of catholicism shall not prevail against it.

>>557151

Just saying though about that first pic to interpret Jesus' word you first need to actually read it

>>557159

Hyperdoge is that you

>>557162

the 2nd one is gold bc they won't understand the reference

>>557199

>why are you not honouring Mary as your mother.

It's not an honor to follow after Catholic lies though. That's the thing: you made stuff up, and me rebuking that has nothing to do with Mary. It has to do with your pride only. That's the issue on the table here.

I hope this is worthwhile.

>>557212

>Were people heretics for 1500 years?

There have been heretics, yes.

>Can you explain why only you don't recognize the Theotokos?

Because of Matthew 24:35 for starters.

>>557209

I'm sorry your pastor indoctrinated you with hatred for the Truth. You need to think of your soul.

>>557235

>1. People are sinning against Mary instead of God now?

If you insult Christ's mother, is she not offended? and how much more so her Son?

>2. You get a ticket to Heaven with the easy work of

- 5 Penances

- 25 decades of the Rosary

- 75 minutes of meditation

That is neither easy, nor a ticket to Heaven. By graces she means a way to clear your soul from purgatory through unmerited Grace. We believe that reflecting upon the Passion of Christ is one of the best ways to earn grace. Since you do not believe in works to begin with, you do not understand.

>3. Notice how none of the above requires lasting repentance or lasting anything.

Non-argument. Reflecting on the Passion of Christ is the acknowledgment of the perfect sacrifice for our sins. That is the essence of Christian repentance.

>4. Who even cares that vain repetitions like the Rosary are called vain in the New Testament?

You call reflecting on the Passion of Christ "vain"? …bro.

>It's an exact analogue to the worst Baptist extreme of "Sinner's Prayer and OSAS"

all is confusion and wind with you

>>557128

>but it is an attack on your pride

I take pride in the Virgin Mother because she gave us Christ, whom is Our Lord and died for our sins. If there's any case of a justified pride, it is this.

>You are the attacker on Mary for making stuff up, making up your own version of her, and saying to believe you is exalting God is what is really twisted and sick.

You have much to answer for when Christ judges us.

>>557199

>Now God wants to use her immaculate heart for the salvation of mankind

Book, chapter and verse, please

>it wasn't demonic when he honoured her to give birth to Christ, and it isn't demonic when he uses her to bring people to Christ

It is demonic for a creature to demand devotion to themselves

>types are not the fullness of what they represent

So this is a type. Ok, then, anon, I have a question for you, is this typology presented in the New Testament, or in the Roman Catholic mythology from centuries after the New Testament? Are you reading this in light of the New Testament revelation, or in light of Roman Catholic doctrine?

>I am

You're confused. I did not mean to state the absurdity of your position, but to state a fact. You may very well compare a Marian prayer to a prayer request, you just cannot do so honestly. Intellectual dishonesty/cognitive dissonance is built into the argument.

>our mother

She's not my mother

>By honouring her I am honouring God

>>Mat:15:3-4

When you honor your actual mother, do you honor her like you "honor" Mary?

>God the Holy Spirit honours Mary as his bride

Blasphemy. Disgusting, wicked blasphemy.

>if God honoured someone I would be scared not to honour that person

So now you ascribe the same worship of Mary to God?

>>557327

>earn grace

Do I even need to point out the oxymoron?

>>557344

through intercession my friend

We cannot pray our way into unmerited grace, but a sinless, holy intercessor like the Blessed Mother (ever virgin) can truly help us.

And ofc, all the angels and saints can help us as well.

>>557235

>1. People are sinning against Mary instead of God now?

You can sin against me. it's not limited to God. it's more offensive to God to have his mother hated by people who claim to follow His Son.

>2. You get a ticket to Heaven with the easy work of

that's not what she promised. She promised the graces necessary for salvation. So if you are in mortal sin, you will get the graces necessary to repent. You can choose not to repent or you can choose to repent, but without the graces necessary to repent you will never repent. 3 is addressed here

>4:

who gets to decide what's vain? apparently it's you and since you are against Catholics, what they do is vain repetition. vain repetition is when you do not put any of your soul, body, mind and heart into prayer and believe you will be heard because you said a long prayer or a prayer many times. Catholics recommend to lower the amount of prayers you say if he can't focus and that God loves a decade of Hail Marys said devoutly more than five decades distracted.

>>557344

>Book, chapter and verse, please

Where is it written that he does not want to use her immaculate heart for the salvation of mankind?

here is where it is written that he wants to use her immaculate heart for the salvation of mankind.

Lk1:28

>The angel appeared to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”

>It is demonic for a creature to demand devotion to themselves

demonic is when it comes from a demon, if it comes from God then it is from God. You have not provided scriptural reference to say why it can't come from God, well you have and I showed you were wrong, with many verses, and that you insisted God was contradicting himself.

>So this is a type. Ok, then, anon, I have a question for you, is this typology presented in the New Testament, or in the Roman Catholic mythology from centuries after the New Testament? Are you reading this in light of the New Testament revelation, or in light of Roman Catholic doctrine?

it is presented in the Scriptures as I have shown, it is present through the Gospels and the Old Testament. The New Testament reveals the old. in Luke and Matthew's Gospels, whenever the kingdom of Christ is discussed, the vocation of Mary as Queen Mother becomes evident.

>When you honor your actual mother, do you honor her like you "honor" Mary?

Yes, in a similar manner. I honour Mary much more because she is the mother of our Lord.

>So now you ascribe the same worship of Mary to God?

how do you get this? what a weird question. In my statement did you think God ascribed the same worship of himself to the person he honoured?

>She's not my mother

then how can Christ be your brother and Lord?

>>557352

I'd like to know where that teaching comes from.

>>557327

>If you insult Christ's mother, is she not offended? and how much more so her Son?

Mary does not have a special elevated status among the believers.

From Matthew 12:

>46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.

>47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

>48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?

>49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

>50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

In the passage Jesus refuses to go out and speak with Mary when she asks. If he refuses to fulfill her wishes in such a small matter, you have no justification to give her special powers to get your personal prayers fulfilled.

>By graces she means a way to clear your soul from purgatory through unmerited Grace.

Even if you believe in Purgatory, it makes no sense that Mary could arrange for you to avoid it all for you having done some chores decades previously. But the text reads like it should also include avoiding Hell, and other Marian apparitions have given promises more explicitly along those lines, only involving different types of work.

>We believe that reflecting upon the Passion of Christ is one of the best ways to earn grace. Since you do not believe in works to begin with, you do not understand.

Rather, I don't understand how meditation can be counted as a work at all in the context of works vs. faith.

>Non-argument. Reflecting on the Passion of Christ is the acknowledgment of the perfect sacrifice for our sins. That is the essence of Christian repentance.

I thought Roman Catholics didn't believe in Once Saved, Always Saved, or in your case Once Saved from Purgatory, Always Saved from Purgatory. The Marian apparition didn't talk about having to repeat the entire months-long effort to please her once you commit the first venial sin.

>You call reflecting on the Passion of Christ "vain"? …bro.

"Vain repetitions". Notice the word "repetitions".

Matthew 6:7

>But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

The rosary is an embodiment of this sort of prayer, which Jesus explicitly condemns as useless. A Marian apparition that promotes the rosary must therefore be spreading false doctrine.

>>557410

>You can sin against me.

If I sin against you, I am also sinning against God. The Marian apparition made it all about her, and also gave herself the power to arrange forgiveness for everything, including sins that should have nothing to do with her.

>So if you are in mortal sin, you will get the graces necessary to repent.

So Mary is responsible for giving out the Holy Spirit now.

>who gets to decide what's vain?

Right after the excerpt I gave earlier, Jesus gave an example of how how to pray properly. It included zero repeated lines. Though, the "Our Father" prayer also suffers from becoming routine. It is better to pray in your own words.

>>560538

>I'd like to know where that teaching comes from

mans traditions