[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / baphomet / bmw / general / hentai / leftpol / lewd / monarchy / turul ]

/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

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.
Email
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Christchan is back up after maintenance! The flood errors should now be resolved. Thank you to everyone who submitted a bug report!

File: f9510449597cead⋯.jpeg (122.73 KB, 640x640, 1:1, 2D292CBA-B21F-442E-8745-1….jpeg)

09d836 No.562885

>Baptist: “are our baptisms considered valid in your church?”

>Catholic: “yes. We believe grace is conferred through all baptisms using the proper trinitarian formula”

>Baptist: “what other things does your church believe confers grace?”

>Catholic: “holy communion, rating the body and blood of Christ”

>Baptist: “do you give communion to babies?”

>Catholic: “no, babies aren’t at the age of understanding. Even though communion puts you in a state of grace, we don’t give it to children below the age of understanding. Below seven”

>Baptist: “that’s interesting. We don’t give baptisms to children below the age of understanding. We only give them to kids around seven or older too”

>Catholic: “woah, this sacrament puts you in a state of grace and you don’t give it to babies? That’s heresy and if your unbaptized baby dies it’s going to Hell”

Hmm

4a4269 No.562889

File: 6499a530ef35fc5⋯.jpg (80.51 KB, 632x768, 79:96, DL3BxL8WsAApAIU.jpg)

>heretical prot teenagers still arguing with big grandad church


290cf0 No.562890

File: 91c0248776252a1⋯.png (143.4 KB, 480x340, 24:17, ClipboardImage.png)

>>562885

>Baptist: “do you give communion to babies?”

Just here to casual imply that we're the master race


b54c22 No.562892

Baptists argue against Catholicism the same way atheists argue against God. Smh.


51e019 No.562895

>>562885

Do you think the Israelites should have circumcised their kids when they were at the age of reason, or 8 days after birth?

>communion puts you in a state of grace

No, you need to be in a state of grace already to receive it.


09d836 No.562899

>>562895

The Israelites should have circumcised their kids at 8 Days, not at seven years. They also shouldn’t have preached that if you were uncircumcised you were unsaved, and then only circumcised you after your first confession when you are seven years old


9c66fa No.562903

I’d give you guys probably 50 more years before your heretical sect dies out


ece6dc No.562910

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>562889

>heretical prot teenagers

Baptists aren't protestant. Another anon posted this Pastor Anderson video the other day and I thought it explained why pretty well.

skip to 11:40 if you just want the tl;dw.


37f0bd No.562912

>>562892

>I have no argument


4a4269 No.562918

File: e6a8cb7eb4c3a58⋯.gif (1.12 MB, 720x404, 180:101, 1510985259706.gif)

>>562910

>Baptists aren't protestant.

pathetic


290cf0 No.562919

File: 4441d18220624b9⋯.png (1.33 MB, 682x1024, 341:512, MetroJo.png)

Man it almost seems as if there is some sort of problem with considering baptism a sort of replacement for circumcision and then not considering the children who are baptized to be part of the covenant people. If only there was a Church which did not have this problem


ece6dc No.562929

File: 81e7f1618b5297e⋯.jpg (25.93 KB, 768x431, 768:431, DOKhU5hUMAA5_oU.jpg)

>>562918

>Protestants separated from the Catholic Church and protest some of it's doctrine

>Baptists have never been a part of the Catholic Church and want nothing to do with any of it

>"Baptists are totally protestant guise!"


290cf0 No.562943

>>562929

Are Anglicans Protestant?

Are Episcopalians Protestant?

Are Methodists Protestant?

Are Nazarenes Protestant?


147895 No.562945

… But honestly though, besides the standard Catholicism-bashing this board is known for, why exactly did it become standard practice in the Roman Church to give chrismation and communion much later than baptism? I don't have a huge issue with baptism by sprinkling and with giving only the bread at communion, even if I think it's silly, but delaying a child's chrismation and first communion is extremely dangerous and makes no sense at all to me.


d38b14 No.562946

>>562919

Why would you receive a "sort of replacement of circumcision" before you were even born again? Well nevermind, it's probably over your head.


290cf0 No.562949

>>562946

>Why would you be baptized before you were baptized


6e7735 No.562959

>>562929

Baptists separated from the Anglican Church which separated from the Catholic church.


cddf66 No.562961

>>562889

Rome is a mother not a grandfather.


ad2cbe No.562983

>>562929

>According to actual historians, founded by an ex-Anglican priest in the 17th Century who became a Dissenter

>Agrees with all the fundaments of Protestant theology, including rejecting the deuterocanon, the solae, priesthood of all believers, invisible church, etc.

>Many denominations additionally incorporate other Protestant practices such as Reformed theology or Evangelicalism

>Most Baptists themselves identify as Protestants

<W-we’re a totally original and separate denomination, you guys!


02ac13 No.563032

File: 456eae81cbafc9e⋯.jpg (56.8 KB, 1000x667, 1000:667, 24 hour toll free prayer l….jpg)

>>562889

>Step second-cousin Cathodox still thinks one can have complete, apostolic beliefs and dogmatic development.


fbc973 No.563071

>>562945

A better question is why did Greeks start giving communion to babies?


147895 No.563076

>>563071

Eh? It's widely attested that communion, baptism, and chrismation were all a single service in the early Church. Except for heretics (like Donatists and Nestorians) who would be received by chrismation and communion alone.


fbc973 No.563077

>>563076

The New Testament says no communion for babies


147895 No.563080

>>563077

Where?


fbc973 No.563081

>>563080

1 Corinthians 11:28


147895 No.563082

>>563081

Either you didn't answer the question on purpose, or we're not reading from the same Bible. How does this say what you claim it says?


147895 No.563083

>>563081

By the way, just in case you're being a Baptist, see Matthew 18:2-4.


fbc973 No.563084

>>563082

Babies can't examine themselves


147895 No.563086

>>563084

Because they don't need to, as they're already fit to enter the Kingdom of God.


fbc973 No.563087

>>563086

>they don't need to

Everyone needs to, unless they want to be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.


147895 No.563088

>>563087

OK, let's try this again.

Why is one guilty of the body and blood of the Lord if they partake of the Eucharist without having examined themselves?

Don't tell me "because the Bible says so," I'm asking you what is the justification behind the Bible saying so.


fbc973 No.563089

>>563088

They aren't necessarily, one examines themselves to prevent it, lest they partake unworthily.


147895 No.563090

>>563089

So it is not absolutely necessary to examine oneself unless one might be guilty, in which case they should examine oneself to see if they have sinned or not?


fbc973 No.563091

>>563090

It's absolutely necessary for everyone to examine themselves because absolutely everyone is sinful.


147895 No.563093

>>563091

… How is a baby sinful? How *can* a baby be sinful??


c4c0ce No.563094

File: 6fc85479c9f4cfb⋯.jpg (23.99 KB, 480x307, 480:307, aca363419aae5f028108175b4c….jpg)

>Baptist: Baptism is nothing special its just a symbol


a22889 No.563095

File: eb2bd402aa4895b⋯.jpg (94.54 KB, 630x457, 630:457, img.jpg)

>baptists are so buttblasted about Catholicism that they have daydreams and fantasize about conversations with us


fbc973 No.563097


147895 No.563098

>>563097

Are you a Catholic or a Calvinist?

Calvinists read total depravity into this passage, but Catholics have moved on from the Augustinian interpretation of Paul for a while now.

And don't make Paul say something he didn't even have in mind. His point is that all, as in both Gentiles and Jews, are guilty toward God because Adam has cursed all of humanity, but Jesus lifted this curse for all humanity. So Jews are not without guilt just because they are God's chosen tribe, and Gentiles are not without guilt just because they have been grafted onto Israel (the Church) while most Jews alive at the time were cut off from it.

St Paul is not making a statement about the sinfulness of children, or indeed the sinfulness of any particular man. Christ was sinless, and so was the Theotokos, and St. Paul does not contradict this even when he says that "all" have sinned.

The understanding of sin as a disease that Adam's original sin has made us weak to, rather than as an inherited guilt, is much more easy to read into the original Koine. Furthermore, Christ said that we must become like little children to enter the Kingdom of God - a useless if not moronic statement if even little children are guilty anyway.


fbc973 No.563106

>>563098

>Are you a Catholic or a Calvinist?

I am Reformed

>Calvinists read total depravity into this passage

This passage does not present the doctrine of Total Depravity

>Catholics have moved on from the Augustinian interpretation of Paul for a while now

Rome has moved away from Augustinianism as a whole for about a thousand years.

>His point is that all, as in both Gentiles and Jews, are guilty toward God

While that is his greater purpose, it is not his point here. He is supporting the point he has spent the last four chapters making, that all are under sin, and if they are all under sin then there is but one way for all. In this passage he shows that in both covenants there is no nation, so all is all without distinction, however it must also be all without exception because if any Jew or Gentile is sinless, his whole argument collapses. All who are in Adam, both Jew and Gentile, are condemned, and all who are in Christ, both Jew and Gentile, are justified.

>Gentiles are not without guilt just because they have been grafted onto Israel

Paul never even considers the possibility that Gentiles are blameless, their wickedness is taken as a given from the first chapter on.

>St Paul is not making a statement about the sinfulness of children, or indeed the sinfulness of any particular man

No, he's making a statement about the sinfulness of every single man

>Christ was sinless

Christ was not born in Adam, He was born of a virgin, which is why He can be the new Adam and the head of a new covenant people.

>The understanding of sin as a disease that Adam's original sin has made us weak to, rather than as an inherited guilt, is much more easy to read into the original Koine

The Pelagian interpretation has no grounding in the text, it is particularly incompatible with the contrast between one trespass and many trespasses in verse 16.

>Furthermore, Christ said that we must become like little children to enter the Kingdom of God - a useless if not moronic statement if even little children are guilty anyway.

Little children do not question their parents, they simply believe and obey them. That is what Christ meant.


d38b14 No.563205

>>562983

>Implying the protties weren't infant baptizers

They bumplocked the thread it was in but see this: >>562246


7af82c No.563219

>>562885

Children cannot lose the state of grace obtained by baptism as they are under the age of reason and thus not capable of sin. This has been covered for thousands of years but who expects a burptist to do his research anyways ?


67c728 No.563232

>>563106

i'm sick af right now so i'll get back to you when I'm not barfing all over the place.


96e9bf No.563235

>>563219

If they cannot lose the state of grace obtained by baptism, and you need to be in a state of grace to receive communion, why can't children receive communion? It makes no sense. The Orthodox are consistent with this point, I don't get why Roman Catholics have this problem


6c892e No.563243

>Baptist: “are our baptisms considered valid in your church?”

>Catholic: “no, since baptists reject that baptism confer grace, therefore they don't have the intention to baptize even when they use the proper formula”

Corrected that for you.


2cda5c No.563250

>>563235

They can and they do in Eastern rites. And can in western ones too. But since it is not necessary to them to obtain salvation why really?


6c892e No.563254

>>563235

Because they need to learn and understand first they are receiving the body and blood of Jesus Christ.


c59df2 No.563312

>>562912

The argument is here. You didn't respond to it because you can't. >>562895

>No, you need to be in a state of grace already to receive it


c59df2 No.563316

>>563235

A person does not have the ability to respond to the grace offered through the Eucharist before the age of reason. It's pointless to give it to a child, almost as pointless as giving it to a dog.

Baptism is not the same because baptism is a washing away of sin, not an outward sign of faith nor a dispensation of sanctifying grace. It is a washing of the soul, quite literally, and so even infants are eligible to receive it.


c9209b No.563317

>>562885

dude baptist did not exist until after the reformation, you guys are just extreme prots.


c9209b No.563318

>>563106

reformed brother, you a presby by any chance?


586cce No.563467

>>563106

Alright, I'm doing a little better right now…

I think arguing about Romans, while a very interesting discussion, would be missing the point, because the real issue here is our different ideas on the Eucharist, not simply on the exact nature of the real presence but also on how it confers grace and unites one to the Church. Maybe we should focus on that.

Regardless, I'll respond to your responses, as it would be rude otherwise, but if you agree with me that the discussion should shift toward the Eucharist, let us do so after this.

>While that is his greater purpose, it is not his point here. He is supporting the point he has spent the last four chapters making, that all are under sin, and if they are all under sin then there is but one way for all. In this passage he shows that in both covenants there is no nation, so all is all without distinction, however it must also be all without exception because if any Jew or Gentile is sinless, his whole argument collapses. All who are in Adam, both Jew and Gentile, are condemned, and all who are in Christ, both Jew and Gentile, are justified.

Chapter 1: Pagan Gentiles are guilty toward God, because they have turned to idolatry even when the glory of God can be understood from His creation. They are guilty and without defense for worshipping that which God created, and this is why God gave them over to sin.

Chapter 2: Both Jews and Greeks will be judged for their guilt, whether this guilt is under the Law (for the Jews) or without the Law (for the Greeks). It is not the works of the flesh (circumcision or foreskin) that justify us before God, but the works of the Spirit.

Chapter 3: Paul begins to pose questions and give responses. Jews are given an advantage over Greeks because they are God's chosen people, but their rejection of God does not mean that God has rejected them, as His promises are eternal. God is glorified even by our transgressions, but that does not make our transgressions good, because we are guilty before the eternal God. Furthermore, no observance of Moses's Law can justify us. This is where Paul makes his first major conclusion: that Jews and Gentiles alike are guilty before God, even if Jews are given priority over Gentiles (whether that is in the salvation or in the condemnation), and so they are alike justified by faith. I'll give the literal translation of David Bentley Hart in the next post.


586cce No.563469

>>563467

Paul's first conclusion (Romans 3:21-31):

>But now God's justice has been manifested apart from Law, being attested by the Law and the prophets, and, by the faithfulness of [Jesus] the Anointed, God's justice is for everyone [as well as upon everyone] keeping faith; for there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of God's glory, being made upright as a gift by his grace, through the manumission fee paid in the Anointed One, Jesus; whom God set forth as a place of atonement through faith in his blood, as a demonstration of his justice through the dismissal of past sins in God's clemency - for the demonstration of his justice in the present season - that he might be just and show him who is of Jesus's faith to be upright. Where, therefore, the boasting? It has been excluded. By what law? That of observances? No, rather by faith's law. For we reckon a man as vindicated by faithfulness, apart from observances of Law. The God of Judaeans only, and not also of gentiles? Yes, of gentiles also, since the God who both vindicates "Circumcision" from faith and "Foreskin" by faith is one. Do we then abolish Law through faith? Let it not be so! Rather, we establish it.

I'll continue my argument in the next post…


586cce No.563470

>>563469

Chapter 4: Abraham was justified by faith, apart from observances (he himself was not circumcised). This justification by faith extends over to all, making them the spiritual children of Abraham, by their faith in Jesus.

Chapter 5: We have been justified by our faith in the one man Jesus. Through the one man Adam, the world has been contaminated by sin, and all men have been contaminated by death, but through the one man Jesus, the world has been healed from sin, and all men have been healed from death. Here is DBH's literal translation in the next post:


586cce No.563475

>>563470

Paul's second conclusion (Romans 5:12-21):

>Therefore, just as sin entered into the cosmos through one man, and death through sin, so also death pervaded all humanity, whereupon all sinned; for prior to the Law there was sin in the cosmos, but when there is no Law sin is not taken account of. Yet death reigned from Adam till Moses, even over those who did not commit sin similar to the transgression of Adam, who is a figural type of the one about to come. As the transgression, however, not so the grace bestowed: for if by the transgression of one the many died, so much the more did God's grace and the gift in grace of the one man Jesus the Anointed overflow to the many. The gift, mroeover, comes not as though through one who sins; for, from one - the verdict for condemnation; from many transgressions, however - the grace bestowed for rectification. For if, by the one's transgression, death reigned through the one, so much more will those receiving grace's abundance and the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one Jesus the Anointed - so, then, just as by one transgression unto condemnation for all human beings, so also by one act of righteousness unto rectification of life for all human beings; for, just as by the heddlessness of the one man the many were rendered sinners, so also by the obedience of the one the many will be rendered righteous. But Law was introduced in order that the transgression might abound; and, where sin was abundant, grace was superabundant, in order that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign by righteousness for life in the Age through Jesus the Anointed, the Lord.

Thus my point being: he is not talking about particular individuals' possible sins, but about how death has reigned in the world, accusating all as sinners, Jews and gentiles without distinction, regardless of how much they may actually have sinned. And so, now, through the crucifixion of Jesus, life reigns in the world, forgiving all regardless of their sins, Jews and gentiles alike.

He is not making a statement about the actual guilt of babies in front of God, as death is not shown to come from God, but from sin, that which is of Adam.

>Paul never even considers the possibility that Gentiles are blameless, their wickedness is taken as a given from the first chapter on.

Romans 2:17-29 addresses the possibility that Jews are righteous when Gentiles are not. But Romans 9:30-10:21 addresses the possibility that Gentiles are righteous when Jews are not.

>The Pelagian interpretation has no grounding in the text, it is particularly incompatible with the contrast between one trespass and many trespasses in verse 16.

So now Catholics and Orthodox are Pelagians? Really?

>Little children do not question their parents, they simply believe and obey them. That is what Christ meant.

Why do you claim that this -alone- is what Christ meant?


437f16 No.563514

>>562890

Always appreciated.


fbc973 No.563696

>>563467

>if you agree with me that the discussion should shift toward the Eucharist, let us do so after this.

Sure.

>Chapter 2: Both Jews and Greeks will be judged for their guilt, whether this guilt is under the Law (for the Jews) or without the Law (for the Greeks)

That is what he says, however before that he establishes that Jews have guilt to be judged for, by accusing them of the same sins as the Gentiles.

>It is not the works of the flesh (circumcision or foreskin) that justify us before God, but the works of the Spirit

Paul does not address justification until chapter 3. Before that his purpose is condemnation.

>This is where Paul makes his first major conclusion: that Jews and Gentiles alike are guilty before God, even if Jews are given priority over Gentiles (whether that is in the salvation or in the condemnation), and so they are alike justified by faith

Paul's conclusion is that all have been condemned by the law, and therefore they must be justified by faith alone. Verses 19 and 20 are extremely vital to understand him, arguably they are the most important in the passage.

<Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God

Though he used a similar expression to describe the Jews alone in the previous chapter, all men are under the law here. All men are judged according to the law, not Jewish ceremonies, but that which is moral. This is Paul's interpretation of everything he has just said, that God wanted men to sin so men would be condemned. God has made the whole world accountable to Himself. Why is this?

<For by works of the law no flesh will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

The law was designed to fail that the gospel may succeed. The purpose of the law is to show men that they are sinners, so they see their need for Christ. This is why knowledge of sin is through the law. Paul concludes, therefore, that justification is through faith in Christ alone, because everyone has already failed to be justified by works of the law.

>>563470

>Abraham was justified by faith, apart from observances (he himself was not circumcised)

Despite the "literal" translation, the word here is works, not observances. It is a broad condemnation of actions. Paul's point is not that Abraham was justified without works, but that Abraham was justified irrespective of works. This is why Abraham can be father of both the circumcised and the uncircumcised, because it doesn't matter what you do, only what you believe.

>Through the one man Adam, the world has been contaminated by sin, and all men have been contaminated by death, but through the one man Jesus, the world has been healed from sin, and all men have been healed from death

I think it is very important to have a biblical understanding of sin and grace. Sin isn't some pollutive element that one can introduce into a river to make everyone sick, and grace isn't some magical cure poured into the same water to make everyone better. Sin is personal wrongdoing. Through the one man's sin, all his household was condemned as sinful, and through one man's righteousness His whole household was justified as righteous.

>>563475

>He is not making a statement about the actual guilt of babies in front of God

Of course not, he's making a statement about the actual guilt of everyone in front of God, because everyone is born in Adam. Babies are just one part of that group.

>But Romans 9:30-10:21 addresses the possibility that Gentiles are righteous when Jews are not.

That is about why God has chosen to bless the Gentile nations and why the Jewish nation has been cast aside. It is not at all the same thing as Romans 2, which is about proving that the Jews are just as sinful as Gentiles and must just like them have a righteousness by faith, not an internal righteousness.

>So now Catholics and Orthodox are Pelagians?

No, however this interpretation of Romans 5 is Pelagian.

>Why do you claim that this -alone- is what Christ meant?

Because that is what Christ Himself said He meant? When scripture itself outright tells me what it means, I don't feel the need to find another way of interpreting it.


67c728 No.564316

>>563696

I'm still sick, do you mind if I respond on another day?




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / baphomet / bmw / general / hentai / leftpol / lewd / monarchy / turul ]