/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

I write that really weird.Sorry i meant =Catholics give reasons why Protestants should convert to Catholicism.

And I guess Orthodox are welcome top

>>573777

>be civil

There is literally no way to civilly tell someone to abandon their church.

>>573777

This thread is going to be horrible

>>573780

Yes, there isn't much way to change someone's opinion without hurting their ego and pride

And?

Who cares?

>>573777

We actually have quite a few converts here to Catholicism from Protestantism, specifically Scandinavian Lutheranism. Hopefully one of them will show up soon to give you a better experience and their personal journey.

The Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ himself, we don't have to go much further than Matthew 16:18 to know that.

<18And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,* and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

<19I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.* Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

The papacy started with Saint Pope Peter and here we are 265 popes and about 2,000 years later. The apostolic succession has been preserved this entire time, each Catholic priest (which includes the popes) can trace their ordination right back to the apostles and thus to Christ who ordained them.

If you haven't read this already, I highly suggest this article: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-church-christ-founded

In the past few months I have come to realize that the best argument for the Church is the Church Fathers (the earliest Christians, those men who were often trained in the faith by the apostles themselves or the pupils of their pupils).

The most knowledgeable Catholic I know is a former Baptist who converted after starting to read the Church Fathers and a week ago or so I met another Baptist on this board who was reading the Church Fathers and he mentioned becoming more and more convinced of Catholicism.

Basically look at the Early Church and compare it to modern Catholicism. You will see most of the Early Church has been preserved in Catholicism (especially the sacraments). This is something that is often missing in Protestantism.

Here are some Church Fathers to read about: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/

Here's a great article about the papacy: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

May God bless you! I'm going to pray for you right now. Please let us know if you have any further questions.

You should also note that this thread is probably going to explode soon in terms of posts and there will be lots of trolls attacking you and the Church, so just try to ignore the uncharitable posts. :D

This thread is going to be nice.

>>573783

Well, sure there is, if you're talking about music or a movie or a book you like that someone says they didn't enjoy. But when you're talking about someone's church, you're digging into something that runs a lot deeper. In many cases you may even be talking about multiple generations of family involvement in a church and you're trying to talk someone into abandoning family tradition.

It gets messy.

>>573777

It's mostly useless. I used to argue a lot. Now I just say hey, all Apostolic Churches happen to to teach the same doctrine, it's highly unlikely that's just a coincidence. I've heard protestants throw out what basically comes down to conspiracy theories against this assertion, but a guy in the 21st century trying to tell me what early Christians believed is just ridiculous to me.

You're seriously trying to convince me that a loose community of clergy deliberately destroyed every trace of what the Apostles taught during and that some German monk 1500 years later discovered that authentic deposit of faith? For me, this is where protestantism makes no sense. Flinging Bible lines against each other based on relative and subjective interpretations is absolutely useless.

>>573794

>all Apostolic Churches happen to to teach the same doctrine

Not exactly

>>573777

>Protestants give reasons why Catholics should convert to Protestantism

Because only in Christ alone can we have forgiveness of sins

<Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Galatians 5:4

Catholic Church is better than many Protestant churches. I wouldn't pretend for a second that converting to something like Episcopalian or PCUSA is a step up from Catholicism. As long as you only venerate Mary, it's better.

There are other heresies. Dual covenant theology has infected the most successful evangelical churches like a plague. Shepherds tell their sheep the Jews don't need to repent.

Baptists are ok if you can sell yourself on saved by grace theology. KJV-only Independent Fundamental Baptist is best, but Southern Baptist will do. Five reasons:

Antichrist Bible Versions: We're not backin' down. NIV is deceptive. NRSV was edited by Satan himself. We'll always stand by the KJV and the Received Text in the way that the Catholic Church should stand by Douay Rheims. Different traditons about Jesus were added in from various manuscripts/traditions, and we're not taking them out to appease the Bible idolaters. Just don't tell Pastor Steve. He literally thinks KJV is inerrant.

Low-maintenance: Just repent and ask Jesus to save you. That's really all you have to do. We can have a bonus baptism if you want, though. You do things like go to church because you love God and not because he's going to reward you for it. We're justified by faith alone.

No confessing your darkest sins to someone you hardly know: Keep that to yourself. The pastor doesn't want to know.

Better /fringe/ content: Many of our members will unironically talk about the possibility of a global flood. It happened. Seashells on mountaintops!

I don't have a fifth reason, really.

>>573777

To find out which sect is correct one, we can't rely on human autonomy and individual desire to find our answer (in Christianity, that's self-defeating), rather we need a specific standard. So, what's the standard? Universally, Christians try to imitate what it's like to follow Christ, and the best example of that are those followed Christ, namely the apostles. This is where disagreements arise, but I think we can reduce the major topics into four questions to find the correct denominations, which are:

What's completely apostolic?

What is the role of God's grace upon the believer?

What is everyone's position in regards to original sin?(I wish I can word this better)

Is God's congregation visible or invisible?

Here are some links to get started. Although, they're a bit biased, I'll admit.

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

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

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

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

(notice that 80% to 50% of doctrines that separates protestants from cathodox begin in the 4h century with the rise of monasticism. Because they wouldn't practiced or as emphasized as before means this cannot be the result of apostolic tradition, since these doctrines was unknown to the apostles or out-right rejected.)

Before someone mentions about who gets to interpret holy scripture, it's necessary to note that during the late 3rd century a church figure by the name of Origen formed an entire school on the interpretation of the bible. I think we should find that suspicious, if there's "apostolic" tradition for the meanings of the bible, Origen should've just visited all the patriarchs for the meaning than to devote his time and money for researching (hypothetically) known interpretations. What is even more troubling is that most of the church adopted his Alexandrian allegorical method soon afterwards, even though he's considered a heretic by said church. Finally there's st.Augustine, who was the leading bishop in the council of hippo and carthage, created entire literary work called On Christian Doctrine, which discusses the interpretation of the bible and not once you will the word 'tradition' contained in it. In fact, Augustine complements the idea of multiple interpretations and comparing scripture with scripture, than to first consult the Vatican.

The majority of the early church fathers revered that the rock of Matthew 16:18 refers to St.Peter's confession, which makes sense in light of 1 peter 2:4-10 and 1 Corinthians 3. The role of the keys is already defined in Matthew 18: 15-20, which was give to all the apostles equally (matthew 16:18-19 had a future tense). The original Septuagint only had the Pentateuch (look it up. Josephus and Philo talks about it.), it's only until Justin Martyr we hear anyone claiming it had more, but even then protestants agree with his canon-because non of the apocryphal book were written by prophets (even 1 Maccabees admits this), so the only books which Jesus held the pharisees accountable is the tanakh (we know what they are from Josephus's against apoin) and no their wasn't a jewish council in 90 ad. That's jesuit propaganda, it's fairly obvious once you read what was actually being said.

I think everyone in this thread should before giving any reasons one way or another consider this passage of Luther from De Servo Abitrio

<In this, moreover, I give you great praise, and proclaim it—you alone in pre-eminent distinction from all others, have entered upon the thing itself; that is, the grand turning point of the cause; and, have not wearied me with those irrelevant points about popery, purgatory, indulgences, and other like baubles, rather than causes, with which all have hitherto tried to hunt me down,—though in vain! You, and you alone saw, what was the grand hinge upon which the whole turned, and therefore you attacked the vital part at once; for which, from my heart, I thank you.

Anyone else think 90% of the faith alone vs. faith + works argument is a matter of semantics? From what I've gathered from all those threads we've had about the thief on the cross, Catholics believe the thief was saved because of his faith and his repentance, which they consider to be a work. I don't think any Protestant would disagree that you must repent to be saved, they just don't consider repentance a work. They consider works to be things like converting people or donating money to orphanages or something like that.

>>573897

Wait a minute are you choosing sacraments based on something important or just your personal feelings?

>>573946

How do you define repent, as it relates to salvation?

>>573946

A "work" is an act of human will. (Thus, "works of the law" is literally "obedience to God's commands in His law").

Catholics are usually saved according to protestants. Protestants are almost never saved according to Catholics.

>>573975

>Catholics are usually saved according to protestants.

It really depends, many Protestants put caveats like "sola fide means you have to believe you have to believe in sola fide for your faith to count" on it to exclude Catholics or accuse us of engaging in idolatry and so don’t actually have faith in God. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is a fairly unambiguous position, or at least was until Vatican II decided to flake out on it.

>>573970

The act of asking forgiveness for your past sins and forsaking them, I guess.

>>573968

What are you asking? I don't see how it's relevant to what I've said.

>>573980

Saving faith is full trust in Jesus to save. Therefore, Catholics aren't saved because they rely partly on their own works to escape wrath. That isn't a caveat being added, it's the doctrine itself. We define faith, and by definition Roman Catholics do not have that faith (at least not if they believe the dogmatic teaching of the magisterium). This is why Galatians 1:8-9 says "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed" and 5:4 says "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace". Believing the true gospel is very important according to the bible, you can't have a little Jesus and a little yourself, it has to be all Jesus or no Jesus.

>>573975

I never met a protestant who had anything but fiery, passionate hatred for catholicism and all catholics.

>t. person living in a completely protestant country

>>573777

The Catholics claim to follow the Apostolic tradition, but contradict teachings in the New Testament. Yet the New Testament contains the most authentic, unchanged teachings from the time of the apostles. Not everything was written down, but the Catholics contradicting that which was written makes the preservation of that which was not written even more dubious.

Even the Catholics themselves admit that some of the historical popes have been utterly corrupt. Because popes are elected, the majority of the cardinals must have approved the election of these popes. The corrupt popes in turn have appointed many cardinals. Under these conditions the historical changes to the official doctrine and practice, and there have been many, cannot be relied on to reflect the truth. Even innocent mistakes and right-seeming additions can easily creep in during the centuries, and some of those men were far from innocent. For example the enforcement of priestly celibacy was primarily about money. Martin Luther had to evade the church authorities after he had refused to recant his opinion on indulgences, because there was a high chance that he would have been burned on a stake as a heretic. The non-Biblical doctrine of indulgences was very profitable to the Vatican, money-wise. But Luther was shown to be right in that even the Catholic Church, despite its initial fierce opposition, has since recanted its earlier position as too indefensible to maintain and nowadays believes in something much closer to the 95 Theses.

>>574080

>>573784

How old is the orthodox faith?

If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517.

If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to re-marry.

If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560.

If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582.

If you are Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England, founded by Samuel Senbury in the American colonies in the 17th century.

If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1606.

If you are of the Dutch Reformed Church, you recognize Michelis Jones as founder because he originated your religion in New York in 1628.

If you are a Methodist, your religion was founded by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1774.

If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, New York, in 1829.

If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.

If you are Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mary Baker Eddy as its founder.

If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as "Church of the Nazarene, Pentecostal Gospel," "Holiness Church," or "Jehovah's Witnesses," your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past hundred years.

If you are Roman Catholic, your church shared the same rich apostolic and doctrinal heritage as the Orthodox Church for the first thousand years of its history, since during the first millennium they were one and the same Church. Lamentably, in 1054, the Pope of Rome broke away from the other four Apostolic Patriarchates (which include Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem), by tampering with the Original Creed of the Church, and considering himself to be infallible. Thus your church is 1,000 years old.

If you are Orthodox Christian, your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ, the Son of God. It has not changed since that time. Our church is now almost 2,000 years old. And it is for this reason, that Orthodoxy, the Church of the Apostles and the Fathers is considered the true "one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church."

I can go no further than to Luther himself to show that protestantism is but fraud:

Firstly, his thesis. Many claim that that they were start of protestantism. But they reject many of them. Who will say that:

>“inner repentance is worthless unless it produces various outward mortification of the flesh” (Thesis 3)

>“God remits guilt to no one unless at the same time he humbles him in all things and makes him submissive to the vicar, the priest” (Thesis 7)

>“That power which the pope has in general over purgatory corresponds to the power which any bishop or curate has in a particular way in his own diocese and parish” (Thesis 25)

>"True contrition seeks and loves penalties, but liberal pardons only relax penalties and cause them to be hated, or at least, furnish an occasion [for hating them]." (Thesis 40)

>There is tresury of merits of saints and Christ (Thesis 58)

>"it is clear that for the remission of penalties and of reserved cases, the power of the pope is of itself sufficient." (Thesis 61)

>"He who speaks against the truth of apostolic pardons, let him be anathema and accursed!"(Thesis 71)

>Mary is "Mother of God" (Thesis 75)

Secondly, all desire of Luther presented in those thesis succeded only in Catholic Church. There you see real reform, there you see "decree of indulgences". Protestantism in end of itself is anathema to itself.

Thirdly, Luther himself said that he will submit to Pope in his judgment in his letter to Pope, May 30 1518

Therefore, most holy father, I prostrate myself at your feet, placing myself and all I am and have at your disposal, to be dealt with as you see fit. My cause hangs on the will of your Holiness, by whose verdict I shall either save or lose my life. Come what may, I shall recognise the voice of your Holiness to be that of Christ, speaking through you. If I merit death, I do not refuse to die, for ” the earth is the Lord’s,” and all that is therein, to whom be praise to all eternity ! Amen. May He preserve your Holiness to life eternal.

Pope heard Luther and issued Exsurge Domine. Luther by Luther's terms should be condemned for not yielding to authority.

Fourthly protestants have no teaching authority. Hebrews 5, Romans 10 and Acts 15 are clear about it as St Francis the Sales explains. And Luther said the same thing in mentioned above letter:

From this, most holy father, has such a fire been kindled, that, to judge from the hue and cry, one would think the whole world had been set ablaze. And perhaps this is because I, through your Holiness’s apostolic authority, am a doctor of theology and they do not wish to admit that I am entitled, according to the usage of all universities in Christendom, openly to discuss, not only Indulgences, but many higher doctrines, such as Divine Power, Forgiveness, and Mercy.

And Pope revoked Luthers authority. And notice, Luther had no vision of Christ, no private revelation about reform. All his authority to do so was from Pope.

Fivethly: Schism and heresy of Luther:

The chief cause that I fell out with the pope was this: the pope boasted that he was the head of the church, and condemned all that would not be under his power and authority; for he said, although Christ be head of the church, yet, notwithstanding, there must be a corporal head of the church upon earth. With this I could have been content, had he but taught the gospel pure and clear, and not introduced human inventions and lies in its stead. […]

We, through God’s grace, are not heretics, but schismatics, causing, indeed, separation and division, wherein we are not to blame, but our adversaries, who gave occasion thereto, because they remain not by God’s word alone, which we have, hear, and follow.

In the name of Scripture he declare himself Schsmatic but Scripture says that Schismatics shall not enter heaven Galatians 5:19-21

>>574080

>The Catholics claim to follow the Apostolic tradition, but contradict teachings in the New Testament.

t. agent of Satan spreading the traditions of men

Protestants believe in faith alone saving thus catholics are saved as faith is a requirement in catholicism. Catholics believe in necessity of sacraments for salvation thus protestants are not saved.

Thus if protestants are right then catholics and prots are saved. If catholics are right then catholics are saved but prots are condemned. Better to hedge your bets and begome

not entirely an argument here, but more an observation..

when a catholic converts to protestantism, it's usually because of emotional reasons:

- "I do not feel the love of the Lord at Mass"

- "I hate what the Pope is doing or saying"

- poor education, and/or poor understanding of Church doctrine, see >>573895

- I dislike what the Church teaches about so and so

and etc.

Conversions for genuinely intellectual reasons seem to be very rare, I think Cath -> Orthodox are more likely to have an intellectual purpose.

>>573975

Well, they can't be saved if the Catholic Church is the genuine sole Church of Christ. Catholics don't put forward "no salvation outside the church" to be mean, they put it there because that's the way it works.

>>574195

disregarding the will of God at the moment of death and inculpable ignorance and etc etc, but my point is made.

>>574094

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

>>574090

How old is the Baptist faith?

If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517.

If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to re-marry.

If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560.

If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582.

If you are Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England, founded by Samuel Senbury in the American colonies in the 17th century.

If you are of the Dutch Reformed Church, you recognize Michelis Jones as founder because he originated your religion in New York in 1628.

If you are a Methodist, your religion was founded by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1774.

If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, New York, in 1829.

If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.

If you are Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mary Baker Eddy as its founder.

If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as "Church of the Nazarene, Pentecostal Gospel," "Holiness Church," or "Jehovah's Witnesses," your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past hundred years.

If you are Roman Catholic or Orthodox, your church was founded in the third century by your "Church Fathers"

If you are a Baptist, your religion was founded in the year 30 by John the Baptist. It has not changed since that time. Our church is now almost 2,000 years old. And it is for this reason, that the Baptist church is considered the true "Independent, Fundamental, and Evangelical Church."

>>574208

>If you are Roman Catholic or Orthodox, your church was founded in the third century by your "Church Fathers"

weak memes, gotta be younger than that, like the emperor constantine founding rcc and persecuting pastor jim ones.

>>574200

Gee I wonder what the Church's been doing for two millennia

>>574208

Good pitch.

>>574192

>Better to hedge your bets and begome

There's a scene in an episode of Sanford and Son where the old man pulls out a keychain with a crucifix, a St. Christopher's medal, a Star of David, a Crescent of Islam, and a Buddha. In his other pocket he's got a "mojo." He's carrying all this stuff because he's scared of flying on an airplane and wants "flight insurance."

>>573975

I think both of these are wrong

>And again, O Saviour, save me by Thy grace, I pray Thee. For if Thou shouldst save me for my works, this would not be grace or a gift, but rather a duty; yea, Thou Who art great in compassion and ineffable in mercy. For he that believeth in Me, Thou hast said, O my Christ, shall live and never see death. If, then, faith in Thee saveth the desperate, behold, I believe, save me, for Thou art my God and Creator. Let faith instead of works be imputed to me, O my God, for Thou wilt find no works which could justify me. But may my faith suffice instead of all works, may it answer for, may it acquit me, may it make me a partaker of Thine eternal glory.

check here to see how old your "church" is

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_heresies

bonus keke:

>There are approximately 20–30,000 Christian denominations, with 270 new ones being formed each year. Virtually all are Protestant.

>>574207

>mfw protestants literally believe St James the Just who wrote part of the bible is in hell because he contradicted the infallible dogmas of Luther: "we are justified by works not by faith alone"

Feels good to be Catholic and know I have a good hope for salvation

>>574514

Actually feels bad that so many people fall for Lutheran dogmas. I'll pray for their salvation

>>574514

>mfw Catholics believe both Saint John the Apostle and St. Paul the Apostle are anathema heretics for believing salvation is by Christ and not by man

Sad!

>John 3:16: 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.

>John 3:18: 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.

>John 6:28-29: Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

>John 6:40: 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. (See Matthew 7:21)

>John 14:6: Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

>Luke 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.

>John 6:40: 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.

>John 6:47: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

>Romans 1:17-18: For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

>Romans 3:28: Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

>Romans 4:5: But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

>Romans 5:1: Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

>Romans 10:9: That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

>Romans 11:6: And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

>Romans 14:23: …for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

>1 Corinthians 1:21: For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

>Galatians 2:16: Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

>Galatians 2:21: I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

>Galatians 3:8: And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

>Galatians 5:4-5: Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

>Ephesians 1:13-14: In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

>Ephesians 2:8-10: For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

>Philippians 3:9: And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

>1Timothy 1:1: Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.

>Titus 3:5: Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

>>574633

I really wish this guy was able to make cogent arguments more than 46% of the time. He is fearless, but wrong WAY too often

>>574619

>mfw Catholics believe both Saint John the Apostle and St. Paul the Apostle are anathema heretics for believing salvation is by Christ and not by man

<Catholic are OSAS now

What.

>>575201

He's overdosed on memes

>>574619

Catholics believe in salvation only through Christ, so your point is a strawman. St James literally believes in more than faith alone which according to some prots means he is condemned

>>573777

As a former Muslim who is becoming Catholic, it's actually a much larger leap from non-Christianity to Christianity than it is from non-Catholic Christianity to Catholicism.

Once you accept Jesus Christ, you have to accept *his* church because he only formed one Church.

>>575981

If you're an Arab you are one of the smartest going around and I commend you

>>576022

Thanks. Yes, Moroccan actually.

>>576168

I know a moroccan girl. She's nice.

>>574207

>What country?

Sweden

Gou should follow what God says over what man says

>>576454

>This is what protestant actually believe

Pope is infallible because God gave grace of infallibility to Peter and his Successors and to the whole Magisterium - Bishops in union with pope.

Joanna d'Arc was burned by corrupted english judges. Pope knew nothing about this.

Church want you to be obedient to all your superiors because there is only one rebel and all the rest are his children. Pope is your superior, just as your Bishop, your Priest, your parents, your boss. Obedience is virtue.

>>574090

Your faith in God is what matters, not the church you belong to.

>Protestants believe in faith alone saving thus catholics are saved as faith is a requirement in catholicism.

This is correct.

>Better to hedge your bets and begome

This is not correct because of the phrase "hedge your bets". If you do not believe that being part of the Catholic Church is a requirement for salvation, then joining it anyway "just in case they're right" indicates lack of faith. If you believe that the Catholic Church is afflicted with deep-rooted heresy and corruption, and that Catholic baptisms are illegitimate, then the correct path is to be properly baptized. It's whatever you believe, really, God is loving and would not damn people to Hell for choosing the wrong denomination if they legitimately believe that theirs is what He wants them to choose.

>>577112

>This is correct.

No it isn't. Read Galatians

>>576941

>I know a moroccan girl. She's nice.

>t. Sweden

/christian/ - the post

>>577113

How do you know Paul isn't just saying salvation doesn't come from ceremonial works of the Law like circumcision?

>>576981

>Obedience is virtue.

not to tyrants it isn't

Why not another Luther? My biggest problem with Reformation ideology and schisms is that it implies a major reformation/schism should ever happen within the Church in the first place. Given the current track record it's not hard to believe that history will once again produce circumstances that will cause yet another major rift in Christianity, and Protestants will find themselves between the Orthodox/Catholics claiming tradition and the new ones claiming new ideology. Would Protestants follow another Luther or claim the next one is invalid over their One True Reformer, essentially rooting themselves as another sect that clings to its traditional history?

This is my biggest problem with Protestant churches that isn't necessarily a Protestant vs Catholic view. I'm just very concerned that Protestants haven't properly future proofed themselves, and this is being generous and assuming that all of the schismatic break offs Protestantism has spawned all fall under the same roof.

One question that has not been suitably answered for me is how do Catholics reconcile the fact that the leader of their church, the Pope, is far from Christian?

It may not be a relevant question. Idk if Catholics are like Baptists, and don't consider their leaders anymore prominent than the congregation member in the Kingdom of God

>>585026

>the Pope, is far from Christian

Francis in particular has pathological altruism, but more in general even Peter denied Jesus and not just once. Jesus only promised safety to the Church, not to Peter himself, and we have no reason to demand the pope be free of sin or error at all times because that's not how it works.

>>577183

Because that's never how he defines it. His arguments apply to any works whatsoever, circumcision just happens to be the work added by the heretics in Galatia.