/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>747723

Without an ordained priest performing the sacrament, it's nothing special. Unless they somehow do it before handing them out.

>>747729

It's a mainline Protestant church, there's nothing like that. I wasn't planning on taking that communion anyways because I want sure if it's okay, but I also don't want to be disrespectful.

its a cracker and grape juice. Just consume it

>>747735

>it's a protestant mainline…

Then do wtv you want with it. Its useless. Firstly most of them don't even believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharisty and secondly they don't have a valid priesthood to consacrate the Eucharistic species so either drink the wine or throw it out.

Throw it away, it's juice that was going to be used in a ceremony to metaphorically represent Jesus' blood

>>747740

>>747749

Alright. I know it's not a valid sacrament but I didn't want to somehow disrespect anything.

>>747745

I think Lutherans believe in real presence but in a completely different way from catholics.

Nevertheless it doesn't mean anything to us.

>>747752

I get you bro. But to who are you being disrespectful to? Your aunt? If that's the case drink the wine. She gave you a drink so don't waste it.

Otherwise besides your aunt you aren't really offending anyone and God would never be mad with you quite the contrary.

But there's another thing here. Your actions might tell your aunt that you believe in what she believes.

If I was you I'd give the wine back and tell her that you are a cathodox and it's isn't a good example you are giving by consenting to take their "Eucharisty" since your actions might influence others to believe in that protestant denom.

>>747752

There's nothing to disrespect because sacraments are anti-biblical

>>747756

>this is my body

>baptise all people in the name of….

>receive the Holy spirit

Etc

Etc

All of these are metaphors guys.

>>747758

Who's that Saint friend?

I had a Canadian friend who had this man as his profile pic.

>>747758

I recognize your belief and I'm asserting that you're wrong, just like you do to me. This is not spiteful.

I did not say that practicing the Lord's supper is unbiblical, i said that sacraments are anti-biblical

>>747759

A metaphor is a figure of speech that, for rhetorical effect, directly refers to one thing by mentioning another

How could baptizing and receiving the holy spirit possibly be metaphors?

I practice the lord's supper and baptism. They are instructions to follow for believers, so we call them ordinances. They do not convey grace because that would be works salvation.

>>747761

I believe that's Saint Benedict

>>747766

What is work salvation? Is this the new misinterpretation that prots have of Catholic theology?

Why the need of the baptism and receiving the Holy spirit? Why did Christ and the apostles bothered themselves to do it?

Why do the Early Church Fathers and the Didache disagree with the protestant theology but agrees with the cathodox one? Why Saint John being alive and well during the pontificate of the third Pope said nothing against this and reached to his disciples like Papias the same Catholic doctrine?

Was everybody including the Apostles heretics?

>>747769

Thanks bro.

>>747772

Better be honest now before going to deep. Its bad for your family because you will have to lie them even harder and bad for your soul since you had to have a double standard for God.

Ill pray for you anon. Hope everything turns out OK.

>>747770

<For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast. (Eph. 2:8-9 NAS)

>What is work salvation?

The position that works are unrelated to receiving salvation

>Is this the new misinterpretation that prots have of Catholic theology?

It's the obvious meaning of the text, and it's one of the five bases for the reformation. It's called sola fide

>Why the need of the baptism

Baptism is directly instructed by God

>and receiving the Holy spirit?

You receive the spirit as a result of being saved, otherwise you go to hell. Baptism does not bring the holy spirit. (see Dismas)

>Why did Christ and the apostles bothered themselves to do it?

Again it's a command of God. Why did the Hebrews observe the passover?

>Why do the Early Church Fathers and the Didache disagree with the protestant theology but agrees with the cathodox one?

Short answer: they don't as a whole

Medium answer: It's not as unanimous as you seem to think, but even if it were a majority or the whole of early Christian teachers being in favor of works salvation, the Bible plainly disagrees

Long answer: enroll in an evangelical seminary

>Why Saint John being alive and well during the pontificate of the third Pope said nothing against this and reached to his disciples like Papias the same Catholic doctrine?

historical speculation presupposed on your idea of apostolic succession

>Was everybody including the Apostles heretics?

No. Paul wrote (as breathed by God) against works salvation

>>747778

>Paul wrote (as breathed by God) against works salvation

St. Paul wrote about works separate from God being dead. Faith without works is dead.

Ergo, Faith with works is living.

>>747790

Yes, this is not a contradiction with sola fide

If you do not have faith, your works will evidence this

>>747795

excellent, so now you agree that salvation requires works from the faithful, barring certain circumstances like the Good Thief.

>>747796

no, you have it backwards

the works do not bring the salvation or that would be a contradiction with ephesians 2:9

you are saved and will necessarily bear fruit, or we could identify that you were not truly saved like those in Matthew 7

The profession of faith followed by immediate salvation seen in the thief on the cross is the normative progression, not the exception. Just like Ephesians 2:9 says it is "through faith, not of works"

John 3:16 says "whoever believes in him shall not perish"

>>747798

>the works do not bring the salvation

I never said that. The Church teaches that Faith comes first, then the faithful do good works that merit salvation in the first place.

>>747802

circular logic

>>747803

explain.

works without faith are in vain, faith without works is in vain.

Faith from the grace of God comes first, then good works must issue forth.

That is not circular logic.

>>747804

You're saying that the future works of the Christian merit (make him worthy of) the salvation, but he hasn't yet performed them to receive the salvation

This is a logical contradiction unless you have some spiritualized middle knowledge doctrine

Your options are

>Salvation comes as a result of works

>Salvation comes not as a result of works

>>747808

>You're saying that the future works of the Christian merit

Once again, I never said that.

>but he hasn't yet performed them to receive the salvation

Being that you're arguing against a point I've never made, allow me to explain. God gives Grace frequently, at His leisure and Will. We never know when man does or does not respond to this Grace.

I'm Catholic, not Calvinist.

What the Church teaches is:

>Salvation comes from faith with works

>Since Christ is judge, and He is not some robot God, He may allow certain people into Heaven depending on His Judgement (see the Thief on the Cross)

both teachings which are backed up in Scripture

>>747811

> I never said that.

>>the faithful do good works that merit salvation in the first place.

Are you meaning a different use of "merit" here? I deliberately provided the definition for clarification

>What the Church teaches is:

>>Salvation comes from faith with works

That's how we know the catholic church is wrong, because this is a direct contradiction with Ephesians 2

>>747812

The point is Faith without works is dead, we underline the point.

>>747818

Are you really not understanding my explanation, or are you playing some semantic game?

>>747812

>Are you meaning a different use of "merit" here? I deliberately provided the definition for clarification

You are not addressing my argument.

>That's how we know the catholic church is wrong, because this is a direct contradiction with Ephesians 2

Faith without works is dead. Works without faith has no merit within itself.

Ergo, Faith with works is salvation for all Christians, barring those who come last.

>>747820

that's exactly what you are doing though?

No Church ever taught what you taught for over 1,500 years…except for Pelagians, I think.

>>747830

>I highlighted the contradiction

There is no contradiction, you're implying a sort of Calvinism where I never stated as such. We believe in Free Will, and God gives Grace when He pleases. Men are free to ignore God's grace.

>here is no way to reconcile Ephesians 2, John 3, etc. with a "faith AND" gospel

You just played a semantic game! Faith with works = completely square with Scripture.

Faith without works is dead. Ergo, Faith WITH works is…fill in the blank!

>>747833

honestly help me understand where we're miscommunicating

>Faith comes first, then the faithful do good works that merit salvation in the first place

>the future works of the Christian merit the salvation, but he hasn't yet performed them to receive the salvation

These are restructures of the same statement

I'm not protesting the reality of faith coinciding with works. The doctrine of sola fide means works are unrelated with receiving salvation. A "faith AND" gospel means adding requirements to be saved.

After salvation, you will have faith with works.

>>747838

>These are restructures of the same statement

Which is a semantic game, because the Church never teaches that Faithful who do works, but later return like a dog to their vomit, is saved.

Rather, we teach that to be in mortal sin not even one righteous work that you do can save you.

>I'm not protesting the reality of faith coinciding with works.

But you keep changing the semantic definition!

It's not "faith AND"

It's not "faith coinciding with"

It's FAITH with WORKS.

>The doctrine of sola fide means works are unrelated with receiving salvation.

A false doctrine that will lead many to Hell, to be sure.

>After salvation, you will have faith with works.

You only receive Salvation which Jesus Christ tells you, "You have done well with my good and faithful servant."

>>747840

If you're agreeing that it's the same statement, why did you earlier protest and say "i never said that">>747811

Let me use the phrase in only one way for clarity:

You do not need faith with works to be saved, because salvation is by faith alone

You will have faith with works after salvation if you are saved

Someone who shows faith without works has dead faith, i.e. he does not have salvation

>You only receive Salvation which(when?) Jesus Christ tells you, "You have done well with my good and faithful servant."

The Bible says you can know you have salvation while living

<13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life. (1 Jn. 5:13 NAS)

>>747843

>You do not need faith with works to be saved, because salvation is by faith alone

Which is disproved by Scripture with "Faith without works is dead".

>You will have faith with works after salvation if you are saved

Here's the crux of the matter, you believe Salvation is already given to you during life, we believe that Salvation is only given when Jesus Christ judges the man. There's enough scripture to disprove your particular teaching, here's one: "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling" is clearly a rebuttal, even out of context.

>The Bible says you can know you have salvation while living

Now this is circular reasoning. Does not the Sacred Scripture also tell us to that the pursuit of Heaven is like a foot race? You don't know you've won until you've won.

>>747849

>Which is disproved by Scripture with "Faith without works is dead".

All you've done this whole time is make that assertion with no argument. Give me your reading on Ephesians 2 that doesn't contradict this idea of requiring works to receive salvation

>we believe that Salvation is only given when Jesus Christ judges the man

why?

Paul and company knew they were saved

<Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you– unless indeed you fail the test? But I trust that you will realize that we ourselves do not fail the test. (2 Cor. 13:5-6 NAS)

How do you have the indwelling of the Spirit if you don't have salvation?

<Do you not know that you are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? (1 Cor. 3:16 NAS)

>Work out your salvation with fear and trembling" is clearly a rebuttal, even out of context

no, it's not. How do you think it is?

>Does not the Sacred Scripture also tell us to that the pursuit of Heaven is like a foot race? You don't know you've won until you've won.

no it doesn't, find me the passage. Do you mean 1 Corinthians 9? That's about sharing the gospel

I showed you exactly where God says "you may know that you have eternal life". Do you deny that fact?

Yooo…i just learned so much legitimate info on this thread. THIS is why i abandoned fb a bit ago.

>>747723

Is there maybe an abandoned church nearby, preferably with a cross that can be flipped upside down?

>>747756

>1 Corinthians 11:25-26 flies over your head

zoom!

>>747778

>Short answer: they don't as a whole (lol source?)

>Medium answer: It's not as unanimous as you seem to think, but even if it were a majority or the whole of early Christian teachers being in favor of works salvation, the Bible plainly disagrees

>Long answer: enroll in an evangelical seminary

Even shorter answer: the church tradition disagrees with the founder of my sect's interpretation of the Bible so I will just reject it.

What's more I don't get how you say the bible plainly disagrees when there's James Epistle which clearly rejects that doctrine. Even if you mental gymnastic around it that means the bible doesn't plain disagrees with the Catholic opinion, it might disagree in your opinion but it's not plain nor explicitly.

Luther was smart enough to realise this and wanted to remove the Epistle of James with other NT texts, but fortunately some of his friends advised him otherwise.

Even Paul whom you guys misinterpreted on purpose ridiculously thinking the "works if the law" in Romans mean our works instead of the works of the dead mosaic law, Paul himself says that Faith only works though charity.

Galatians 5:6

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision: but faith that worketh by Charity.

And not to mention the parable of Jesus about the two houses and how the storm destroys one and not the other etc.

St. Peter rightly spoke about you saying:

2 Peter 3:15-16

And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation: as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

>>747766

>They do not convey grace because that would be works salvation.

>2 Peter 1:5-9

>For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, mutual affection; and to mutual affection, love. For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But whoever does not have them is nearsighted and blind, forgetting that they have been cleansed from their past sins.

Okay so, is this works salvation?

>>747766

>I am the only real protestant

My sides

I'm pretty sure that the Apostle meant the Body and Blood were more than metaphors. Or that the people who were getting sick from their carelessness weren't just "metaphorically" sick.

"Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep." 1 Cor 11:27-30

It sounds like serious business to me.

>>748007

John 6:56

For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.

Jesus for the first time actually says my flesh is meat indeed and my blood drink indeed.

If he had just said "my flesh is my meat" only there could be ground to make a claim it was metaphorical. But Jesus says "indeed" meaning He is saying it literally.

I just don't know why protestants don't respect my personal interpretation of the Bible. In my personal interpretation the Bible tells me that the Pope is the head of the Church, that you need the sacraments, that the Eucharisty is literally the body of Christ…

They just get mad at me because I like the dude in Rome with the funny hat.

attention catholics: merely asserting your position is not a valid debate strategy

>>747997

I'm not appealing to a certain man's exposition, I'm appealing to the plain reading of scripture

I am still waiting for the catholic interpretation of ephesians 2

As I've restated many times, this is not in contest with James 2. I even drew a diagram.

<For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love. (Gal. 5:6 NAS)

Ironically this is proving the counter to your point, it's saying that obedience to the law in circumcision (or just being a Jew) does not have any salvific effect. "charity" in your translation is not "works", the greek says agape.

<The two foundations

explain yourself, are you saying the foundation you're trusting in is your own good works? If your house washes away, meaning you die and go to hell, would you conclude that your good works just weren't a firm enough foundation?

>calling me a false teacher

not an argument

>>747999

>Is this works salvation?

no, this is obedience to God AFTER salvation. Notice that it reads forgetting that they have been cleansed from their past sins.

>>748000

I am not claiming to invent this

It is a longstanding baptist distinctive

>>748007

The reality of curses for disrespecting God doesn't give permission to overspiritualize the ordinance as bringing salvation. Men throughout the Bible have been cursed for a myriad of things.

>>748010

>"indeed" lets us know he is meaning literal

interesting argument, still doesn't permit the contradiction with Ephesians 2

>protestants don't respect my personal interpretation

Stop this strawman caricature of protestantism. Sola scriptura is explicitly incompatible with relativism. We do not affirm that all interpretations are valid.

>>748076

>I am still waiting for the catholic interpretation of ephesians 2

What's wrong with ephesians?

>As I've restated many times, this is not in contest with James 2. I even drew a diagram.

What diagram? And what part of "So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself." don't you understand.

I seriously would like to know what mental gymnastics you use to avoid this issue.

>Ironically this is proving the counter to your point, it's saying that obedience to the law in circumcision (or just being a Jew) does not have any salvific effect.

Since when the Church believes that any of the Mosaic precepts are needed for salvation. Are you winnie the pooh kidding me?

>"charity" in your translation is not "works", the greek says agape.

Color me surprised. Faith without love is dead. That's is. Faith only exists through love, which means that without the latter there's no faith. So faith alone is wrong. But wtv you want to think. If you can work your way around James 2 you can do this too.

>explain yourself, are you saying the foundation you're trusting in is your own good works? If your house washes away, meaning you die and go to hell, would you conclude that your good works just weren't a firm enough foundation?

Those you have faith and do what Jesus said will have houses that will stand against very storm.

On the contrary those who just merely believe can be shaken by everything and it will go down at the first storm.

Its quite obvious if you read the gospel.

Matthew 7:24

Therefore, everyone who hears these words of mine and does them shall be compared to a wise man, who built his house upon the rock.

How much more explicit you want?

>calling me a false teacher

Aren't you the one twisting the words of Paul?

Or is it me? If I'm the one then I'm in good company with the Apostles and their disciples.

>>748076

>interesting argument, still doesn't permit the contradiction with Ephesians 2

What's your problem with Ephesians?

>Stop this strawman caricature of protestantism. Sola scriptura is explicitly incompatible with relativism. We do not affirm that all interpretations are valid.

Then tell me. From the 900 million protestants there are in the world or to make it easier from the 30 000 denominations that exist in what kind of prots should I believe? The only thing they have in common is that they broke away from the Catholic Church.

Should I believe in your interpretation? What makes you right and pastor Anderson or some other dude wrong?

>>748082

Ephesians 2 teaches that salvation comes through faith not of works.

Diagram is here >>747830

>Since when the Church believes that any of the Mosaic precepts are needed for salvation?

I'm not alleging this, I'm saying that teaching works salvation from this passage is wrong

Are you saying that "charity" means you have to do works to be saved?

>Faith only exists through love, which means that without the latter there's no faith. So faith alone is wrong.

Tiresome semantic argument

"Sola fide", "Faith alone" is exclusively in reference to works for salvation. You can hold to Sola Fide and say "Faith and love" or even "faith and repentance"

>Those you have faith and do what Jesus said will have houses that will stand against very storm.

And what is it that Jesus said to do here? Ask for salvation

<7 "Ask, and it shall be given to you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you.

<8 "For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it shall be opened.

<9 "Or what man is there among you, when his son shall ask him for a loaf, will give him a stone?

<10 "Or if he shall ask for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he?

<11 "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him! (Matt. 7:7-11 NAS)

the sacraments haven't even been introduced yet in Matthew's gospel, so how could you connect "and acts upon" to them?

Jesus also says "go and sin no more". Is that an instruction you first have to follow in order to be saved?

>Aren't you the one twisting the words of Paul?

no

>>748083

>What's your problem with Ephesians?

Ephesians 2 teaches that salvation comes through faith not of works. It's not my problem, it's a contradiction with catholic theology.

>what kind of prots should I believe?

Baptists, because we're correct

>Should I believe in your interpretation?

you should judge what I say against the Bible like Paul said

>What makes you right and pastor Anderson or some other dude wrong?

I'm potentially right or wrong about anything, it's up for you to reach a biblically informed conclusion

I am not saying "thus saith the lord"

>>748088

Have you ever read what the Catholic doctrine teaches about justification?

One who does good works cannot be saved without faith.

James uses a definition of faith which just means belief. If you say you believe in Jesus but do not practice what he teaches, your belief serves you nothing, aka your faith is dead.

I have faith in Christ because I believe he is God and that the Church is his bride, therefore since I believe in what Jesus told me I have to do the sacraments and all the rest, because he said we needed them for salvation. If I rejected them then it wouldn't be the Catholic faith.

A Catholic is saved because he believes in Jesus Christ and if he believes he will practice what he taught, but if he doesn't even if he knows what he did was wrong goes to hell.

Humans can change and triumph over temptations.

Let's settle things once for all.

How do you think a man can be saved?

Otherwise we are losing ourselves over the meaning of faith and the meaning of works.

>Baptists, because we're correct

Lutherans also say they are correct, calvinists also say they are correct etc.

Why should I trust you when the Catholic Church is the one that maintains apostolic succession and is leaded by the successor of S. Peter himself?

>I'm potentially right or wrong about anything, it's up for you to reach a biblically informed conclusion

I have reached one. It just isn't the one you like.

>>748109

>One who does good works cannot be saved without faith.

>James uses a definition of faith which just means belief. If you say you believe in Jesus but do not practice what he teaches, your belief serves you nothing, aka your faith is dead.

I am in agreement

>How do you think a man can be saved?

By believing on the Lord Jesus Christ

>Why should I trust you when the Catholic Church is the one that maintains apostolic succession and is leaded by the successor of S. Peter himself?

It can't, because the origin is faulty. The doctrine of the papacy is not biblically founded and Peter never held such an office.

You should have no reason to trust me at face value

One thing more about the biblical stuff. How did the people before the bible was compiled got to reach a biblically informed conclusion

before the Canon was decided by the catholics and orthodoxs and the Bible compiled by the same men?

Where were the Baptists in all this? Is it a new church? And why did the Catholic Church fail then if Christ said it wouldn't?

Now for your next questions:

>By believing on the Lord Jesus Christ

What is believing in Jesus Christ? Define belief. Because I believe in Christ as well. Do Baptists believe that catholics go to heaven as well?

>It can't, because the origin is faulty. The doctrine of the papacy is not biblically founded and Peter never held such an office.

Except that Christ tells him to be the Sheppard of all Christians and men like St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Irenaeus, St. Papias (a disciple of St. John. St. Joh was alive when St. Clement of Rome was the third Pope) St. Justin Martin etc etc just to mention those who lived during the apostles time and right after all are unanimous saying that Peter was the finest Bishop of Rome.

>>748112

>The first Bishop…

winnie the pooh phone

>>748112

How did I get saved before I read the bible? Someone told me the gospel

>Where were the Baptists in all this? Is it a new church? And why did the Catholic Church fail then if Christ said it wouldn't?

Baptist is a theological term. We are called baptists for our practice of believers baptism by immersion, the only mode found in the bible. We do not claim to have exclusive power in interpreting the Bible and we don't call ourselves a church of which you must be a member to be saved. Churches are local congregations

>What is believing in Jesus Christ?

First tell me, do you reject this answer?

>Do Baptists believe that catholics go to heaven as well?

Most baptists never consider it and would say "yes"

I once had an old country pastor explain to me that catholics could only be saved in spite of catholicism, because the catholic gospel is false. If you are trusting in works to save you, you are not fully placing your trust in Jesus.

>Christ tells him to be the Sheppard (sic) of all Christians

where?

>Peter was the finest Bishop of Rome.

I have no reason to believe Peter was ever in rome. I do not reject the office of "bishop of rome" though

>>748120

Baptists are just the 28261th grouo of american protestants with no idea about theology, Church history, councils or tradition.

Salvation by the way is through GRACE ALONE. Justification is through faith (belief) and works (love and charity), both of which are necessary for it to be considered that the grace of God is accepted. Both of those are enabled by God's grace, so there is no personal merit in neither. This is stated one and again in every single compilation of atholic doctrine. You can see that both you and your pastor have no idea of what you are talking about,which is the result of centuries of rejecting the authority that has existed since the very first Christians, who had a singñe hierarchy. There has never been several Churches, which is why ecumenicql councils, for example, exist. Saying theñat there are several churches because someone talks to them meaning the Church in a location makes as much sense as saying that there are several Churches because a church is just a building.

Go read the Fathers of the Church and the saints and actual doctrine instead of going to some LARPing club with a random lay person whose knowledge of Christianity is on par with that of Muhammed. Or better yet, dont do so, and keep being a fine example of the fruits of protestantism becausr you are a coward that doesnt dare to leave the random group of lay people that your parents brought you to.

>>748120

>Baptist is a theological term. We are called baptists for our practice of believers baptism by immersion, the only mode found in the bible. We do not claim to have exclusive power in interpreting the Bible and we don't call ourselves a church of which you must be a member to be saved. Churches are local congregations

Thanks for the info. So it's just a Bible study club founded that baptises people by full immersion. Which has no weight telling which one is right or wrong.

>>What is believing in Jesus Christ?

>First tell me, do you reject this answer?

What answer? I believe in Christ.

>If you are trusting in works to save you, you are not fully placing your trust in Jesus.

Jesus himself told us to do what he taught. I'm not gonna tell him I don't need to lol.

>>Christ tells him to be the Sheppard (sic) of all Christians

>where?

Matthew 16:28 and John 21.

>I have no reason to believe Peter was ever in rome.

Everyone that lived back then said so. Where they all lying? Is Catholicism the worlds biggest conspiracy plot?

I thought we are going to discuss in the truth, not invent excuses to reject historical facts. Other protestants argue other reasons for not being catholics that although wrong, don't try to invent or disprove what really happened.

> I do not reject the office of "bishop of rome" though

In what way then? Is the Pope the Bishop of Rome to you? You recognise there is a Church hierarchy?

>>748132

Basically this, just like every prot. specially the American branch

>>748132

You're obviously not American and have little familiarity with American baptists

Baptists are at the center of theological study in the US and church history is extremely important

It is not a club of unschooled laypeople sitting around making up new readings of the Bible

>>748138

A man is saved by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. True or false?

>>748141

If you don't do what he tells you to do then dead is your belief and will do no good to you.

Then belief only isn't enough. Then the answer is no.

I'd like to add another thing I forgot in the previous post.

I could pick up a book written by Buddha or some other tigger and then 500 years later I could make my own church of people who believe what he wrote that book and I would have the common protestant church built on some other than Jesus. I could pick on the books of Freud and 5000 years later do the same thing.

Inb4 I'm using the atheistic argument that we picked up the bible and made a religion. In the case of protestantism this couldn't be more correct.

In this case the bible is just another book written by dead people, with there words, that is just another heavy paperweight.

But in the case of the Catholic Church things couldn't be more different.

The bible by itself is dead, but the word of God becomes alive by the Spirit of the church and its people and tradition.

The story for us doesn't end in the Acts of the Apostles.

The history of Christ didn't end in the last book of the Bible.

If someone bothered to write to bible would be still in progress today.

We are the living words of God. You and I are characters in this story.

I'm part of this big bible called church history so as every Christian.

The Holy Spirit is still working on the Church and it will until the end of the world.

The bible isn't dead because we keep reviving it every single day.

Even its formation was subject to life. First the Jews wrote part of it, then it was the apostles of Christ and now, although we don't write in there anymore the people of God continue their walk though this Earth until the end of the world.

The bible isn't just a book we've picked up.

We wrote the Bible and the Bible is just one of the things that tell us God was with us, so he will always be.

In other words, God isn't dead.

>>748144

You're in direct contest with scripture

Acts 16:30-31 NASB — and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

>>748147

Of course they had to convert.

Do you actually think he meant just believe and then do nothing, don't show up for mass, don't even be baptised because all you need is just belief etc.

Even the devils believe in Christ in that case.

>>748157

This about sums it up in one go. Very well put.

>>748157

>and that you are filled with the Holy Spirit.

And how do you know that?

>the thief on the cross didn't do good works because he didn't have the capacity to do so yet he was still saved

Of course. That's called perfect contrition. Read what that anon said: Salvation by the way is through GRACE ALONE. >>748132

It was the grace of God that saved the thief. I guess your not familiar with the doctrine of grace.

Read this article were it explains what we catholics believe. It's explains much better than I can.

This stuff is freely on the Internet so there's no excuse for misinformation on the protestants party, unless pretending to be ignorance is useful for some pastors to steer away the faithful.

This article

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm

I'm comming from the Presbyterian tradition going into Catholicism.

The difference in the teaching of Works is almost non-existent. Catholic teach it's required to do Good works for fruit to grow and to provide justification of Faith.

Faith alone, truthfully isn't much different. It teaches good works is a fruit in it self of Good faith. Which comes down to having faith in Christ and doing his word.

The Catholics explain why we do Christs word, and The Protestsnts teach just Christs word.

>>748200

Perhaps he is talking about getting up Sunday morning and going to Mass to receive the sacraments.

That indeed requires works like getting up and having a bath.

>>748200

Are you saying that baptism is required for salvation, but it isn't a work?

>>748234

It's a vehicle of grace

>>748236

Is that a yes or no

>>748237

What is a winnie the pooh work for God's sake?

The baptism clears all the original and actual sin, you receive God's grave which will help you during your life as a Christian and finally you become a member of the church.

You really have to explain us what is a work.

I'm not very good at anti Catholic theology.

>>748253

But of course. It was Jesus who said so.

John 3:5

Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Everyone who isn't baptised isn't a member of the Church and therefore Satan awaits.

**we mustn't forget though there people who want to receive the baptism but that becomes impossible (exemple. Dying with no one nearby to baptise him) in that case they are saved because they wished for the baptism, and why wouldn't they get what they wished for?

That's the baptism of desire. (however if he survives he needs to be baptised by water. After all it was his wish). There too the baptism of blood. A Martyr for the Catholic faith if he dies before being baptised, (example a catechumen) is nonetheless saved because he died for Christ and those who lose their lives for Him, shall find it. They are baptised in their blood so to speak.**

>>748260

Do you agree that baptism is a work?

>>748261

It ain't a deep or task.

Its a Sacrament.

And even if it was what would be the problem I ask.

>>748261

It's not a work of the individual being baptised. It could be considered a work of the person doing the baptising.

Damn aren't you eager to prove something.

Its the Lord's grace that saves you.

>>748267

if it were, it couldn't bring salvation without contradicting Ephesians 2:9

This is the baptist position, that it is an ordinance to follow after salvation

>>748268

interesting pivot, I disagree

Do you agree that taking the lord's supper is a work?

>>748273

>pivot

A change of direction in what exactly?

I do not believe taking part in a Sacrement such as the Eucharist is a work either, it's a vehicle for Faith to transpire.

I'm

>>748198

So you may know the context of my understanding

>>748277

a change in explanation from the norm, I'm not meaning to say you're fickle on your doctrine

Why do you not believe that the sacraments are works?

Do you think that foot washing is a work?

>>748278

Foot washing would be a work in my view yes. That it a likeness of Christ that we would be called to fulfill.

>Why do you not believe that the sacraments are works

Because these are things that bring us into Communion with Jesus where he is the high priest. So for instance giving the Eucharist as Priest would be considered a work- because you're doing the work of the High Priest Christ. But if you're there merely for the communion of the Body and Blood then you are not doing the work of the High Priest you are being subject to him.

>>748273

Oh I see where you are trying to get with Ephesians lol.

It means that whatever you do is worthless if God's grace isn't in you. Without God's grace you will perish no matter if you are like mother Theresa of Calcutá. She is in heaven not because of her works, or her own growth as a synonym, but because of God's grace.

You are saved because of God's grace that's the Catholic doctrine.

And ironically ephesians are the reason we need the sacraments. For they convey God's grace to us.

>>748253

bruh if you think doing things physically cannot merit salvation then you deny Christs Incarnation

why are protestants such heretics

>>748283

"work" ἔργον doesn't mean to priestly duties, it refers to all action

https://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_2041.htm

>>748285

>sacraments convey God's grace to us.

Exactly my point of opposition. sacraments are works and so can not convey (salvific) grace

I think we're concluding that the catholic/sacramentalist answer is that sacraments are not works, and that's the only way out of Ephesians 2:9

Is that said in your catechism somewhere?

Would you both agree that if sacraments were works, they could not bring salvation? This is a direct statement in the Bible.

>>748294

Yeah I never said it did. Taking part in Sacrements isn't an active (masculine) part of Faith, it's a passive (feminine) part where we are to receive grace.

Thank you for the cool diction definition tho, I appreciate it. :)

>>748292

to rephrase so that you dont twist my words

if you find physical deeds so repulsive and non-conducive to the Divine plan of salvation, then you reject Gods Logic that required Christ to come down physically, get baptised physically, heal physically, undergo His passion physically, and eventually be crucified physically.

Yes, no matter what we do in order to achieve enlightenment or salvation by our own power, we would not be able to reach Heaven because we are mortal and limited. Only when we obey Gods Will and accept His grace do we ever merit. And God commanded us to imitate Christ, and to receive sacraments.

Belief is not soley mental acceptance of the reality of Christ, it is bringing that reality of Christ in the flesh, like He did, and thus according to Divine Wisdom we sometimes have to do physical things to cooperate with His Plan.

>>748303

>Belief is not soley mental acceptance of the reality of Christ, it is bringing that reality of Christ in the flesh, like He did, and thus according to Divine Wisdom we sometimes have to do physical things to cooperate with His Plan.

Amen brother

>>748298

gotcha, so it sounds like you don't think baptism or the lords supper are requirements to receive salvation

that's the point I'm trying to stay on and argue for

>>748303

For any man besides Christ, we can not earn salvation. Christ was able to live a perfect life that we could not, making him the only suitable sacrifice.

I am in agreement with this post

what you said here though, >>748292

>bruh if you think doing things physically cannot merit salvation then you deny Christs Incarnation

meaning

>doing things physically can merit salvation

but the Bible says

>it is the gift of God; not as a result of works

do you see the dilemma?

This is not a twisting of your words

>>748310

>gotcha, so it sounds like you don't think baptism or the lords supper are requirements to receive salvation

that's the point I'm trying to stay on and argue for

Are you a snake? Because you are twisting my words now as well because you completely disregard the Faith of Christianity when you make those claims against me. If so shame on you for not conversing in good Faith.

Those are vital elements of Christianity, it us on us to recieve the gifts that Christ brought from Heaven. It is not works as they are gifts for us to receive. Attending to the gifts and paasing them along is what works is! Not recieving!

>>748318

I understood "I never said it did" as referring to "sacraments can not convey grace", I think that was my mistake

I think you're maintaining that sacraments aren't works. Is that right?

>>748310

>Christ was able to live a perfect life that we could not, making him the only suitable sacrifice

No, that is not what made him the suitable sacrifice. God is perfect, so with that Nature of Christ is he was fully Perfect, not because he chose to be so he just was. He never sinned because that is our Nature, yet he was still tempted by our sin since he was fully man.

The Sacrifice was only to be fulfilled by the Son of God, it's not even a question of who else could of done it- it would be impossible. His perfect nature didn't let him be the sacrifice, it was destined from the beginning, there is no other thought or Word that would fulfill HIS destiny.

>it is the gift of God; not as a result of works

It is a Gift. Everything he does for us is a Gift. Nothing we can do can ever merit grace. But God is just and he does view us by our actions and our heart. Works are called to us, and we are to fulfill them, if we do not God will see our hearts as being untrue to the actions and words that we have said.

>>748319

If you are receiving sacrements there are not works, yes.

If you give the sacrements there are works.

>>748111

>It can't, because the origin is faulty. The doctrine of the papacy is not biblically founded and Peter never held such an office.

Boom, trips of righteousness.

>>748322

>1

fine

>2

>It is a Gift. Everything he does for us is a Gift. Nothing we can do can ever merit grace.

agreed

>Works are called to us, and we are to fulfill them

agreed

WHEN does the salvation come, before or after the works?

>>748324

mistaken understanding of the term

if I eat a normal sandwich, is it a work?

>>748328

>WHEN does the salvation come

WITH. We when work we are infused with the Holy Spirit to fulfill the Work sent upon us! Without the Spirit working WITH us we would never be able to accomplish works.

>mistaken understanding of the term if I eat a normal sandwich, is it a work?

What? I already provided you why it's nor a work to receive Sacraments

>>748334

so once you start doing the works, then you're saved?

do you find "salvation" to by synonymous with "infusion with the holy spirit"?

>>748337

>so once you start doing the works, then you're saved?

No you're only saved when we are judged on our death.

>do you find "salvation" to by synonymous with "infusion with the holy spirit

Interesting question, I believed a "saved" person would be infused with the Holy Ghost, and I do believe if you are not you will not be saved. But I do not think the is the redeeming factor of our Salvation, on the contrary I believe it's a grace that is bestowed upon the Faithful.

So no, not synonymous but being infused does imply recieving Grace, and it does imply they are a member of the Body of Christ.

>>748303

winnie the pooh this.

>>748294

Praying is also an action aka work.

Don't pray bro and where that leads you.

>>748310

>For any man besides Christ, we can not earn salvation.

and that is the point of the sacraments, they draw us closer to the life of Christ; worthily and devoutly recieved, the Eucharist unites us with Christ - body and blood, soul and divinity. Christ is in us, and we are in Christ, allowing us by His grace to merit salvation with works, because He is working within us. Its quite esoteric and is the fullness of the faith that reconciles Heaven and earth, Faith and good works.

If you are too stubborn to see the grand mystery of the fullness of the mystical Body of Christ on earth then you will end up being like the 5 virgins who had lamps but did not keep with them oil to be ready when the Master returned.

>>748337

>once you start doing the works, then you're saved

Everyone stop!

This is the origin of his heresy.

Nobody knows that he is saved nobody.

That's completely against the bible for a man to know he is saved.

You only know if you are saved or not after your death. Period.

There's no feel good doctrine in Christianity.

>>748338

>No you're only saved when we are judged on our death.

so we have a fundamental disagreement on eternal security

The Bible says we can know we are saved, while living. What do you think about this?

<13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life. (1 Jn. 5:13 NAS)

>>748341

I'm not saying to not practice the ordinances you illiterate

>>748349

<you may know that you have eternal life. (1 Jn. 5:13 NAS)

>>748350

we have eternal life, but we can lose it - the same way that Adam and Eve had eternal life (a gift from God), and when they disobeyed His commandment they lost it, and were banished from the garden of eden.

>>748352

>but we can lose it

prove this biblically

<whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. (Jn. 3:16 NAS)

>>748354

i mean i just showed you biblically with Genesis but

"fear and trembling"

"He who endures to the end will be saved"

>endures

denoting effort

Also, like we have stated to you earlier, as does James the Apostle

Belief is not only a mental acceptance, but obedience to Gods Will and being "crucified with Christ" in thought, word, and deed.

If you say "Lord Lord" but do not follow the Will of the Father, you WILL perish.

>>748350

What what does your verse prove man?

That whoever follows Christ will have eternal life? Or better put, to know he is the way to get eternal life.

>>748361

The fall connection was related to the first death entering the world

Matt 24:13 is firstly about the end times, but "the one who endures to the end" is the one who has believed and the spirit has indwelt him. If you don't endure, we know you were not saved. He will be saved because he already has salvation.

>>748361

a small example of True Belief

you lend a man 200 dollars because he is in need:

a true believer would realize that this is an opportunity to forgive debt, in the same way the Father forgave our debt for the sake of His Only Begotten Son. Thus the true believer does not mention it to this man, and if it does, it is full of charity and compassion.

a meme believer would get upset for losing his material wealth to some scumbag, and would bother the man at every chance, condemning him, saying "Jesus would not be happy with your behavior, repent and give me back my money!! *quotes bible passage*

this second man "believes" in the same way many protestants do, he intellectually accepts the reality of Christ Our Savior, but he does not apply the teachings this very Savior commanded us to.

>>748354

1 Corinthians 9:27

>But I chastise my body and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway.

St. Paul didn't know for sure if he was saved but a random baptist says we know.

OK.

>>748363

It proves that we can know that we have eternal life if we believe in Jesus

basic exegesis

>>748370

And so what?

>>748372

so you're not only saved after judgement upon death

>>748364

and every time we sin we invite death back into our life.

listen man youve got fire but your doctrine is a hollow shell of the True Religion that really gives life to faith. More often than not this "once saved always saved" leads to spiritual stagnation, as you always have to worry about NOT putting in work on your faith (more meditation, prayer, study, corporeal acts of mercy)

(side note how do you explain the Good Samaritan??? Who did Christ commend??? Im pretty sure helping a guy out and paying for his room and board is works)

, and NEVER have to worry about your soul "because i made that 1 resolution that 1 time, and totally have kept it since then"

>>748376

Assuming you are right, answer this is it possible to lose your salvation?

>>748377

I'm not choosing my doctrine because I think it makes things easier or would make more pious Christians, I'm choosing the consistent application of the scripture

>>748378

No

>>748379

but piety is way more important than scripture, as it was piety that gave birth to the scriptures

youre also not being consistent with scripture, youre only idolizing a false interpretation of " faith not works" that doesnt coincide with the reality of Christ and His Life

>>748382

It was God that gave birth to the scriptures

>>748384

It was God the Holy Spirit that directly inspired pious men to write it down, yes

>>748385

yes, the scriptures are God-breathed and come to us from those men

Men can not contradict scripture, or they're wrong

>>748387

Which we are trying to tell you the Catholic Tradition is fully in compliance of.

Yours is to, but to a degree I would not call anyone to teach. It is shallow and short of the fullness of the True Way.

>>748381

Just then.

Everyone is tempted and might lose his faith.

1 Corinthians 12:13

Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall. No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful and He will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape that you may be able to endure it"

Revelation of John 2:5

Be mindful therefore from whence thou art fallen: and do penance and do the first works. Or else I come to thee and will move thy candlestick out of its place, except thou do penance.

Oh no God can take away our salvation.

1 Corinthians 4:3

But to me it is a very small thing to be judged by you or by man's day. But neither do I judge my own self.

Oh wait we can't be our own judges. How can we know we are saved then? Hmmmm

Here we have the statement we're St Paul is afraid to fall and being eliminated

1 Corinthians 9:26-27

I therefore so run, not as at an uncertainty: I so fight, not as one beating the air. But I chastise my body and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway.

>I know better than St. Paul

t. (You)

>>748390

The other guy said "piety is more important than scripture"

I agree that the question should be "which theological system is best in line with God's word?", and the catholic argument is that it is theirs

>>748391

>Oh wait we can't be our own judges. How can we know we are saved then? Hmmmm

<you may know that you have eternal life. (1 Jn. 5:13 NAS)

>>748393

It is the Catholic system.

Question, do you believe in Demons?

Who do you go to do an exorcism ?

>>748394

>do you believe in Demons?

Yes I do

>Who do you go to do an exorcism?

I've never pursued an exorcism. I personally can not be possessed because I'm indwelt with the holy spirit.

>>748393

Why don't you put that verse in context.

1 John 5:12-13

>He that hath the Son hath life. He that hath not the Son hath not life. These things I write to you that you may know that you have eternal life: you who believe in the name of the Son of God.

How do we know we have the Son?

Well St. John answers that:

John 6:57

>He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him.

I'm sorry there's no easy salvation in Christianity.

>>748399

You're explicitly drawing in a different context

>He that hath the Son hath life. He that hath not the Son hath not life. These things I write to you that you may know that you have eternal life: you who believe in the name of the Son of God.

you may know. Who is you?

you who believe in the name of the Son of God

If you believe in the name of the Son of God, that is, believe in Jesus, you have salvation

Eating his flesh and drinking his blood are things that Christians do, but these things do not bring the salvation

>>748397

Demons don't just possess people, they also obsess to.

The point is The Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches are the authority of this area of spirituality, for good reason.

>>748402

Are you meaning this as a selling point to permit contradicting scripture? You're making a weird connection

>>748401

Do you have the Son? Stop twisting the Scripture. He says those who have the Son. That's the You he is talking about.

And we have the Son by eating his flesh.

And the same John tells us God can take away our candlestick so pls cease you heresy.

>I personally can not be possessed because I'm indwelt with the holy spirit.

That much pride is a mortal sin lad.

Are you some kind of living Saint?

Because you will sin someday like all of us again. What will you tell yourself then. That actually you weren't saved? But you seemed so sure back then…

>>748404

No, I'm merely pointing out how the domains of it's authority is ever lasting, how the protestant are and will always be in a submissive relationship to it.

>>748404

Read the book of Tobit and you will see what anon is talking about.

Oh wait I forgot Saint Luther removed it just like the Jews did at the end of the 1st century A.D because they didn't like it.