/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>560596

>Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

Can someone pls exblain what OP is saying here

>>560603

>Can an infant confess God is lord and accept the HS? Then why waste a sacred that's meant only for believers?

An infant can believe that Jesus is our savior as demonstrated by St. John the Forerunner when he leaped in his mother's womb

>>560603

>I made this for this kind of situation.

It would be helpful if any of the Reformers actually understood the scriptures, which they did not.

>They're the one's who capitalize sola fide.

That's my point.

>Can an infant confess God is lord and accept the HS? Then why waste a sacred that's meant only for believers?

Yes, as only children will be let into the kingdom of God, and we must become like them. By being children, they already confess the Lord by their innocence.

>>560606

To be a Roman Catholic is literally to be "of Cephas," since the Pope alone has the authority of Peter, and the other apostles and bishops are not equal to him.

>To be a _ is literally to be of __

>belonging to any denomination literally contradicts scripture

ok

>>560615

>implying "of Cephas" means Catholics worship the Pope

>>560615

>It would be helpful if any of the Reformers actually understood the scriptures, which they did not

citation needed

>>560615

>To be a Roman Catholic is literally to be "of Cephas," since the Pope alone has the authority of Peter, and the other apostles and bishops are not equal to him.

Which is why the Church is unified rather than having to deal with constant schisms and quarreling over who has authority like what happens with the eastern churches. Christ intended to have an apostolic leader, and he happened to chose Peter for this purpose. We don't say our church is Peter's church, we say it's Christ's church founded on the apostle Peter.

>>560631

>Which is why the Church is unified rather than having to deal with constant schisms and quarreling over who has authority

Sedevacantists exist

>>560635

>Sedevacantists exist

Yeah, but as far as I'm concerned they're not off to founding their own new Church and electing themselves a new pope.

>>560596

Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who trespass against us.

>>560639

So? Am I supposed to begome ordodox because of a handful of larping autists?

>>560642

Nope, you're supposed to stop making false claims

<the Church is unified rather than having to deal with constant schisms and quarreling over who has authority

^that is objectively false

>>560643

>^that is objectively false

1 billion+ of Catholics worldwide faithful to the Holy See says otherwise.

>Is -anybody- right at this point?

Catholics, always and forever.

Was this to disprove denoms? James 2 is justified to man and children can be baptized if they believe

>>560644

The majority of those are nominal homophiles

>>560650

Source?

>>560657

>U.S.

I hate to break it to you but they hardly speak for the majority of Catholics.

>>560660

Wait a minute.

>Act smug at orthos because they don't have a Pope to correct errors in the church

>Protestant posts Catholic views in marriage in the U.S.

>Whoa there the Catholic Church isn't all the same

>>560663

Cmon I hope you aren't serious. The Church has only one view about marriage. The fact that the laity has been poorly catechized and probably many have not been properly excommunicated is a different issue. This is different from saying, "What is the official protestant teaching on marriage?" and newsflash, there isn't one cause each bob or joe who sets up a church has some different answer.

Lets try this with orthos. "What's the official teaching on x", yeah you can't get one answer because the Ethiopian Orthodox Church can have a different answer from the Russian which can have a different from the Assyrian etc

>>560625

The community of Corinth did not worship Paul or Appolos either, but they divided into factions depending on who baptized them.

>>560628

Paul writes like shit and the Reformers misinterpreted everything he had to say about justification.

>>560631

The Church has had to deal with constant schisms and quarreling over who has authority in the 1st millenium, and in the Western world, it continued even up to now.

Jews obviously rejected the authority of the Christ.

Donatists rejected the authority of any bishop or priest who is not literally sinless.

East and West have had schisms here and there during the 1st millenium because of the authority of the Pope.

Then there's the schism of 1054 obviously.

Then you have the whole business with antipopes, the Avignon papacy, etc.

Then you have the Reformation.

Then you have the Old Catholics who reject Vatican I.

Then you have the sedes who reject Vatican II.

>>560649

James isn't about justification to men, but to God. Reformed eisegesis won't change this.

>>560665

Are you fucking serious? The Ethiopians are Monophysites. The Assyrians are Nestorians. Don't talk about things you know nothing about or you will embarass yourself.

If you ask "what's the official teaching on X" to Eastern Orthodox, you'll get the same variety of responses you'd get asking Catholics. That is, little variety, unless you ask about sexual anthropology, because catechesis is fucking terrible for Catholics while Orthodoxy hasn't elaborated its ideas on natural law much.

>>560666

I'm fully aware that Assyrians are Nestorians, which is why I even brought them up. Many people may try and lump them in with EOs.

>If you ask "what's the official teaching on X" to Eastern Orthodox, you'll get the same variety of responses

Wrong. That's just orthos trying to justify their division. Catholics have a magisterium, which EOs do not, simple as that. The EO as a whole isn't even a whole first of all, and is divided amongst itself with regards to theology and many other things.

The Catholic Church has the magisterium to provide a single answer for matters, and while the laity might be idiots, it is not divided.

>>560669

>I'm fully aware that Assyrians are Nestorians, which is why I even brought them up. Many people may try and lump them in with EOs.

If you are aware, then why mention them? We are not in communion, not since the 6th century, and neither are you. Why not dump Orthodox and Catholics in the same bag too while we're at it?

>Catholics have a magisterium, which EOs do not, simple as that.

The synods of bishops do not have things to disagree about. It is the laity that is stupid.

The EO Churches are not theologically divided… Citation needed, etc.

>>560674

What is the official stance of all EO churches on remarriage? Does your magisterium say that there is a 1,2,3 rule and fourth you are out? Or what about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imiaslavie. Has this been condemned by all EO churches, not just the russian one? I guess we will never know.

>>560666

>Paul writes like shit

hello Muhammad

>Reformed eisegesis won't change this

I don't know what you think the Reformed interpretation is, but Calvin himself said James is talking about justification before God.

>>560684

I meant "reformed," as in, of the reformers. I didn't mean "Reformed" as in "Calvinist," sorry.

>hello Muhammad

What does this intend to mean?

>>560680

>What is the official stance of all EO churches on remarriage? Does your magisterium say that there is a 1,2,3 rule and fourth you are out?

Ecclesial remarriage after ecclesial divorce is possible, although not ideal. The "not more than 2 remarriages" rule is applied universally, yes.

>Has this been condemned by all EO churches, not just the russian one? I guess we will never know.

If a heresy only concerns one Church, why should the other Churches bother to make a statement too?

Similarly, Sophianism is condemned as a heresy only by the Russians, because it's only a problem for the Russians. We all have the same holy tradition - if it becomes an issue in other Churches, they'll have their word to say too.

>>560695

>What does this intend to mean?

You insulted Paul and his epistles, very Islamic

>>560684

>Calvin himself said James is talking about justification before God.

I'm pretty sure Calvin disagrees.

<http://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/james/2.htm

<That we may not then fall into that false reasoning which has deceived the Sophists, we must take notice of the two fold meaning, of the word justified. Paul means by it the gratuitous imputation of righteousness before the tribunal of God; and James, the manifestation of righteousness by the conduct, and that before men, as we may gather from the preceding words, "Shew to me thy faith," etc. In this sense we fully allow that man is justified by works, as when any one says that a man is enriched by the purchase of a large and valuable chest, because his riches, before hid, shut up in a chest, were thus made known.

>>560698

I wouldn't say they were written poorly, but its also true that they contain difficult to understand passages that frustrate protestants even to this day.

>>560698

Paul is an apostle of God, and one of the coryphei. Doesn't change that his epistles are written like garbage. They're all written as if the Lord was going to return before they could be completed. He constantly goes from one topic to another, sometimes you even have 5-6 different ideas colliding with one another in the same sentence. Even Peter acknowledges that Paul's epistles are difficult to understand.

I'm not insulting Paul or the Scriptures when I say that Paul was a terrible writer. However, I just might insult you if you think that his epistles are beautifully made or even liturgical. They are all over the place and far from clear or poetic.

>>560707

>Paul was a terrible writer

except Paul didn't write "his" epistles. God did. Stop blaspheming God.

>>560714

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

>>560707

Maybe you think they're poorly made because you can't grasp his arguments. Which would also explain why you're still Eastern Orthodox

>>560702

>I'm pretty sure Calvin disagrees

You're misunderstanding him. The only thing he says is before men is the 'manifestation of righteousness'. Calvin is saying that it's about justification before God, but how to recognize the possession of that justification in others, not how to acquire it ourselves.

<The Sophists lay hold on the word justified, and then they cry out as being victorious, that justification is partly by works. But we ought to seek out a right interpretation according to the general drift of the whole passage. We have already said that James does not speak here of the cause of justification, or of the manner how men obtain righteousness, and this is plain to every one; but that his object was only to shew that good works are always connected with faith; and, therefore, since he declares that Abraham was justified by works, he is speaking of the proof he gave of his justification.

>>560715

God-breathed literally means divinely inspired. If you believe that God himself wrote the Bible (pbuh) then you believe he decided to write the Gospel four times, with their minor discrepancies, through four different people. If God wanted to write a book, surely the Son would’ve written it. Instead we see that He appointed His Apostles to preach the Good News to the world orally, in continuation of His ministry.

>>560607

>John the Forerunner

What is this meme?

>>560755

>we see that He appointed His Apostles to preach the Good News to the world orally,

1 Peter 1:23-25. It's the word of God whether you read it written or hear it spoken. And yes, it is exactly as God intended it to be in four Gospels and in each of the epistles.

>>560758

>Master Chief's real name is John

>343 Guilty Spark tells him "You are Forerunner"

>>560720

> Calvin is saying that it's about justification before God, but how to recognize the possession of that justification in others, not how to acquire it ourselves.

You don't seem to understand. He states that St. Paul talks about justification, and St. James talks about justification, but As he most plainly puts it

>Abraham was justified by works, he is speaking of the proof he gave of his justification.

This is not justification before God but men, again

> Paul means by it the gratuitous imputation of righteousness before the tribunal of God;

Paul is before God

and

> James, the manifestation of righteousness by the conduct, and that before men, as we may gather from the preceding words

James, the manifestation of it before men. Calvin holds that the justification referred to is before men, not God. He literally says it, so I don't know how you can continue to disagree.

>>560793

Anon, you can disagree with Calvin if you want, but don't misrepresent him. I just explained what he means and I don't know how I can make it any clearer.

>>560793

1 Corinthians 4:1-4

Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.

Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.

But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.

For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.