/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>772660

Literally nothing, perhaps a bit too much idealism is all I have by way of criticism

>t. Anglican

>>772663

>literally nothing

>t. anglican

You're not allowed here idolater.

>>772660

>Papism

>Worship of Mary

>Worship of Saints

>Worship of Statues

>Massive Amount of Idolatry

>Vain Repetitions

>Odd Non-Biblical Rituals

>Purgatory

>Denying the One Sacrifice of Christ

>Believing They Are Cannibals

>Salvation by Works

>Adding to the Bible

>Traditions of Men

>Pedophiles

Honestly there's just too much to list, but they are a false religion.

>>772660

No mass excommunication of most MesoAmerican Catholics, timidity in China.

>>772672

Piss off

I've noticed that lots of protestants who accuse Roman Catholics of idolatry, have no problem worshiping non "religious" idols like the constitution and the founding fathers

>unbaptized foreigners who have never heard of Jesus may still be saved

>unbaptized babies who have never heard of Jesus man not

Not even trying to fling shit. I legitimately don't understand this.

>>772675

You only have room to say that if your name is Tom Woods

>>772668

>Idolater

I'll ask St Mary to bless your unctuous soul

>>772675

Same. It's especially bad among non-denominationals, who have been corrupted by secularism.

>become genuinely upset over the thought of catholics using christian icons and art to grow closer with god

<use electric guitars, candles, starbucks coffee, and a myriad of other secular objects to "grow closer" with god

>>772660

I still haven't made my conclusion yet, its clear modern Catholicism with the new mass and Pope Sodomite IV has little to do Christianity as they are not Catholic by definition of their own church

I feel alot of the things that put people off Catholics is that they simply refuse to communicate properly, examples include:

>"Hey bro this looks like idolatry can you prove it isn't with the bible"

>"No salvation outside the church bub"

>"Ok but can you prove this isn't idolatry"

>"Mary is THE MOTHER OF GOD, THE HOLY QUEEN OF HEAVEN"

>"Ok granted but can you show that praying to her isn't idolatry"

>"Submit to the throne of peter or enjoy hell"

etc. etc

In addition to this doctrines such as "papal infallibility" and the "veneration" of saints are horribly worded to say the least, and imply something other than what they mean

One should judge a tree by its fruit and people by their works, the catholic church is a mixed bag to say the least

>>772676

This also, according to Catholic doctrine God made an exception for Mary and she did not have Original sin, why is it ruled out that our God with unending love wouldn't make an exception for babies murdered in the womb?

>"What do you find wrong with the Roman Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox) religion? Why do you choose to follow Biblical Christianity instead?"

… You know Christ said a very interesting parable. It was about this Pharisee and a publican (tax collector). This Pharisee went into the middle of the temple and thanked God that he wasn't like that dirty tax collector, that God had made him so good and perfect.

Meanwhile the Publican beat his breast and sought mercy from God, sticking to the back of the temple, acknowledging his own failings and sinfulness.

Tell me, who went away justified in the end?

There are no problems, it's the one true faith. The only criticisms of Catholicism by Prots are those aimed at strawmen like >>772668 and >>772770. The only legitimate theological conflicts I've ever heard have been from Eastern Orthodox, and even those are relatively petty differences that persist for the sake of keeping the schism alive.

>>772676

They may still be saved if they acted in accordance with the natural law and had *invincible* ignorance of the Catholic faith. I don't understand why this is such a tough doctrine, is it truly just to cast those virtuous peoples who had no access whatsoever to true divine revelation into hell? Similar with the unborn, who were additionally incapable of committing sin and incapable of knowing God. It is presumed that these are left to the infinite mercy of God, who is reasonably relied upon to offer them salvation. Today, however, invincible ignorance is near impossible to claim as the universal Church has made itself nigh universal.

nothing. there are God fearing catholics just like there are God fearing protestants. the biggest issue is ecclesiology, and the corruption it can conceal, and usually thats seperate from the laity.

t. baptist

>>772673

>No mass excommunication of most MesoAmerican Catholics, timidity in China.

Unironically this.

>>772660

>Luthers are not allowed in this thread

Huh?

>>772784

I think OP only wants Calvinists/KJV-onlyists/OSAS Bappies. But thats my theory.

>>772668

If you think the living human experience that is religion can be limited to a book that was written by a religious community for its own purposes, you are the one making up a religion, not us.

>>772660

>whenever we refute them the mods just ban us so hopefully

No. The mods ban you because you're always trying to start flame wars and derail threads at the slightest mention of Our Lady.

>>772668

>memes

Sage this abhorrent thread

I think majority of Catholic clergy and in fact most Catholics I speak to online at least are very cruel people. That's just my experience.

>>772682

Imagine believing Mary is co-redemtrix and thinking you're going to heaven.

I'll ask Christ, my God, to bless you.

Catholic is a Greek word meaning "globalist".

>>772675

Not an American but showing respect to the dead isn't the same as asking them to help you and to pray on your behalf. I have not issue with the veneration of the saints until a certain extent when it just becomes idolatry.

>>772739

>Idolise the bible we gave them

>WE

Implying all the church fathers were even Cathodox. And if we were just copying you guys then we would have the same canon. But we don't so stop spreading this meme of "WE WUZ BIBLE MAKERS".

Even the apostolic fathers didn't believe this but rather saw the canon as something the church recieved, not create.

>>772780

Ok, you want a non straw man argument how about this. 1 you believe that there is one mediator (and another co-mediator). You believe that we must work for our salvation, and don't say you believe that you are justified by faith since you believe in baptismal regeneration. 3 you re sacrifice Christ at every mass but use sophisty to hide it. You follow man made tradition instead of God's word. In fact when talking to Catholics they've tended to use the exact same arguments the Pharisees used against Christ. And you think that priests can absolve sins.

That's just a few.

>>772660

The only problem I have with Catholics is Original sin. Other than that they are definitely bro-tier.

t. Ortho

>>772667

One and only, tiggah.

>>773074

>we wuz church fathers n shieeeet

Protestantism began in the 1500s, your "connection" to the early Church is entirely a figment of your imagination.

>>773089

the claim was "apostolic fathers did not hold your view" and your reaction was to mock the assertion with n;ggerspeak, effectively saying "no u"

>>773083

That's where you're wrong. You're making bold statements and I bet you haven't even read patristic texts but rather just repeating common papist rhetoric.

This is from Clement of Rome in his epistle to the church in Corinth:

>They were all glorified and magnified, not through themselves or their own works or the good deeds which they did, but through His will. 4 And we also, having been called through His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, or by our own wisdom or understanding or piety or the works we have done in holiness of heart, but through the faith, by which the Almighty God has justified all men from the beginning; to whom be glory for all ages. Amen.

Clement of Rome epistle to church in Corinth chapter 32

>>773089

Also, that pic is stupid for the single fact that we don't say that 1500 years of church history should be ignored. If we truly ignored all of church history then we would be jehovas witnesses or Mormons. They're the ones that actually claim that there was a great apostasy. And also the Cathodox church went into error as the centuries went by, by adopting man made traditions hence why the church had to be "reformed" not innovated or changed.

>>773092

>quoting a bishop as a protestant defense.

Odd.

>Seeing, therefore, that we are the portion of the Holy One, let us do all those things which pertain to holiness, avoiding all evil-speaking, all abominable and impure embraces, together with all drunkenness, seeking after change, all abominable lusts, detestable adultery, and execrable pride. "For God," saith [the Scripture], "resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble." Let us cleave, then, to those to whom grace has been given by God. Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words. For [the Scripture] saith, "He that speaketh much, shall also hear much in answer. And does he that is ready in speech deem himself righteous? Blessed is he that is born of woman, who liveth but a short time: be not given to much speaking." Let our praise be in God, and not of ourselves; for God hateth those that commend themselves. Let testimony to our good deeds be borne by others, as it was in the case of our righteous forefathers. Boldness, and arrogance, and audacity belong to those that are accursed of God; but moderation, humility, and meekness to such as are blessed by Him. -Chapter 30

>The good servant receives the bread of his labour with confidence; the lazy and slothful cannot look his employer in the face. It is requisite, therefore, that we be prompt in the practice of well-doing; for of Him are all things. And thus He forewarns us: "Behold, the Lord [cometh], and His reward is before His face, to render to every man according to his work." He exhorts us, therefore, with our whole heart to attend to this, that we be not lazy or slothful in any good work. Let our boasting and our confidence be in Him. Let us submit ourselves to His will. Let us consider the whole multitude of His angels, how they stand ever ready to minister to His will. For the Scripture saith, "Ten thousand times ten thousand stood around Him, and thousands of thousands ministered unto Him, and cried, Holy, holy, holy, [is] the Lord of Sabaoth; the whole creation is full of His glory." And let us therefore, conscientiously gathering together in harmony, cry to Him earnestly, as with one mouth, that we may be made partakers of His great and glorious promises. For [the Scripture] saith, "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which He hath prepared for them that wait for Him."-Chapter 34

The early church did not subscribe to the protestant dichotomy between sola fide and works salvation. Such a dichotomy was only even considered by tge Church at Trent, as prior the necessity of works alongside faith was always implied when not explicitly stated.

>>773103

halt immediately

Sola fide is exclusively a soteriological claim. It does not challenge the necessity of works for the Christian life. There is nothing in your quotation that challenges sola fide.

"works salvation" vs "sola fide" is not a protestant novelty, it's the only honest reading of Ephesians 2. The early church straight back to the apostle Paul saw it exactly this way, as evidence in the previous quotation >>773092

>>773105

>The early church straight back to the apostle Paul saw it exactly this way, as evidence in the previous quotation

Such an quotation would only suppourt sola fide on it's own, not in the context of the whole epistle.

>Sola fide is exclusively a soteriological claim. It does not challenge the necessity of works for the Christian life.

If works are necessary then works are necessary, at least in the capacity that they are possible. If they are necessary, then to not do them is to go against the will of God. James is crystal clear on what the consequences of such a dead faith are, and he specifically treats of the necessity of works in terms of justification. Primacy is always to be given to faith in justification, as works are dead without it, and Trent says the same.

>And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.

If you think Clement dosen't explicitly refute sola fide, then you aren't reading Clement.

>How blessed and wonderful, beloved, are the gifts of God! Life in immortality, splendour in righteousness, truth in perfect confidence, faith in assurance, self-control in holiness! And all these fall under the cognizance of our understandings [now]; what then shall those things be which are prepared for such as wait for Him? The Creator and Father of all worlds, the Most Holy, alone knows their amount and their beauty. Let us therefore earnestly strive to be found in the number of those that wait for Him, in order that we may share in His promised gifts. But how, beloved, shall this be done? If our understanding be fixed by faith rewards God; if we earnestly seek the things which are pleasing and acceptable to Him; if we do the things which are in harmony with His blameless will; and if we follow the way of truth, casting away from us all unrighteousness and iniquity, along with all covetousness, strife, evil practices, deceit, whispering, and evil-speaking, all hatred of God, pride and haughtiness, vainglory and ambition. For they that do such things are hateful to God; and not only they that do them, but also those that take pleasure in them that do them. For the Scripture saith, "But to the sinner God said, Wherefore dost thou declare my statutes, and take my covenant into thy mouth, seeing thou hatest instruction, and castest my words behind thee? When thou sawest a thief, thou consentedst with him, and didst make thy portion with adulterers. Thy mouth has abounded with wickedness, and thy tongue contrived deceit. Thou sittest, and speakest against thy brother; thou slanderest thine own mother's son. These things thou hast done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest, wicked one, that I should be like to thyself. But I will reprove thee, and set thyself before thee. Consider now these things, ye that forget God, lest He tear you in pieces, like a lion, and there be none to deliver. The sacrifice of praise will glorify Me, and a way is there by which I will show him the salvation of God."

>>773108

Are you deliberately ignoring the point?

Read again:

<Sola fide is exclusively a soteriological claim

That means works are necessary for the Christian, works are necessary for justification.

You're not arguing with sola fide, you're arguing with a straw man in your own mind

>>773110

>works are necessary for justification.

So how is that sola fide if fide is not sola? Justification is how one merits salvation, so you essentially just said that works is a soteriological matter. I think you need to clarity your theology a bit more.

>>773111

Do I need to remind you that there are five solae?

Read here for the justification presentation: https://carm.org/are-we-justified-faith-romans-or-works-james

You are justified if you have the faith that manifests in works, but not by virtue of those works.

>>773116

>You are justified if you have the faith that manifests in works, but not by virtue of those works.

That truly pleasing works are a byproduct of faith should does not reduce them merely to a part of faith, nor does it subtract from the merit they add to a faithful man. Each man, as Christ said, is rewarded for his works. Those who work good receive good for it, and those who work evil, particularly those who do works to merit reward and not for God, receive evil as well, if they are not penitent. Matthew 25 says the same, as does Trent.

>Before men, therefore, who have been justified in this manner,-whether they have preserved uninterruptedly the grace received, or whether they have recovered it when lost,-are to be set the words of the Apostle: Abound in every good work, knowing that your labour is not in vain in the Lord; for God is not unjust, that he should forget your work, and the love which you have shown in his name; and, do not lose your confidence, which hath a great reward. And, for this cause, life eternal is to be proposed to those working well unto the end, and hoping in God, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Jesus Christ, and as a reward which is according to the promise of God Himself, to be faithfully rendered to their good works and merits. For this is that crown of justice which the Apostle declared was, after his fight and course, laid up for him, to be rendered to him by the just judge, and not only to him, but also to all that love his coming. For, whereas Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses his virtue into the said justified,-as the head into the members, and the vine into the branches,-and this virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works, which without it could not in any wise be pleasing and meritorious before God,-we must believe that nothing further is wanting to the justified, to prevent their being accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained also in its (due) time, if so be, however, that they depart in grace: seeing that Christ, our Saviour, saith: If any one shall drink of the water that I will give him, he shall not thirst for ever; but it shall become in him a fountain of water springing up unto life everlasting. Thus, neither is our own justice established as our own as from ourselves; nor is the justice of God ignored or repudiated: for that justice which is called ours, because that we are justified from its being inherent in us, that same is (the justice) of God, because that it is infused into us of God, through the merit of Christ. Neither is this to be omitted,-that although, in the sacred writings, so much is attributed to good works, that Christ promises, that even he that shall give a drink of cold water to one of his least ones, shall not lose his reward; and the Apostle testifies that, That which is at present momentary and light of our tribulation, worketh for us above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory; nevertheless God forbid that a Christian should either trust or glory in himself, and not in the Lord, whose bounty towards all [Page 44] men is so great, that He will have the things which are His own gifts be their merits. And forasmuch as in many things we all offend, each one ought to have before his eyes, as well the severity and judgment, as the mercy and goodness (of God); neither ought any one to judge himself, even though he be not conscious to himself of anything; because the whole life of man is to be examined and judged, not by the judgment of man, but of God, who will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts, and then shall every man have praise from God, who, as it is written, will render to every man according to his works. After this Catholic doctrine on Justification, which whoso receiveth not faithfully and firmly cannot be justified, it hath seemed good to the holy Synod to subjoin these canons, that all may know not only what they ought to hold and follow, but also what to avoid and shun. _Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 16.

>>773065

blackpilled, in a sense. Most people aren't going to heaven.

>>773076

Are these truly the best objections one can have? They're all strawmen you can find out the reasons why with Google.

>>773108

I don't think you fully understand the passage you've just quoted. The translation appears so be quite old, so it's understandable that someone today could misunderstand the passage. I recommend you read Michael W. Holmes' translation of 1 Clement 35.

>How blessed and marvelous are the gifts of God, dear friends! Life in immortality, splendor in righteousness, truth with boldness, faith with confidence, self-control with holiness! And all these things fall within our comprehension.

Here Clement is talking about the gifts which we can understand now.

>What, then, are the things being prepared for those who patiently wait for him? The Creator and Father of the ages, the all-holy One himself, knows their number and their beauty. Let us therefore make every effort to be found in the number of those who patiently wait for him, so that we may share in his promised gifts.

And here he is talking about a separate set of gifts that we cannot understand. He is saying that our works determine what unknown gifts we shall receive, but justification is not one of these gifts that is based on our works. This is why he says right after this passage that we are all soldiers in Christ and that not all soldiers are centurions or captains and that the great cannot exist without the small.

However, for the sake of argument, let's say Clement is saying that justification requires works in chapter 35. That does not mean he is not teaching justification by faith alone in chapter 32, which he very explicitly is, here and in other passages, even in the full context of the epistle. It would only mean that he is inconsistent and therefore not a reliable source for interpreting the Gospel. Just for clarification, I am not saying he is inconsistent, but if we follow your interpretation then he would have to be.

>>773173

If they were so easy to refute then you'd give reasons why they're wrong instead of just saying they're easy to refute. And I doubt you've even taken the time to study the matter. I have and I've discussed it with other Catholics and I'd tell you that there is no answer to these.

>>773103

You've shown a lack of critical thinking. Even John Calvin and Martin Luther believed in the necessity of works. Clement here is in fact quoting Ephesians 2:8-9. We know this because he uses the term "dia pisteōs" which translates to through the faith and is used by the writer to the church in Ephesus. Also, he wasn't a bishop. If you read the shepherd of Herman's you'll see that he was a transmitter of letters.

>Thou shalt therefore write two little books, and shalt send one to Clement, and one to Grapte. So Clement shall send to the foreign cities, for this is his duty; while Grapte shall instruct the widows and the orphans. But thou shalt read (the book) to this city along with the elders that preside over the Church.

Vision 3 of shepherd of Hermas. You should also bear in mind that a lot of early succession of bishop lists have contradictory accounts of early bishops of Rome because they did not have monarchical episcopate until the middle of the second century. So about 150ad. That's why the bishop lists from before that time have different bishops at the seat.

>>774207

>I am not saying he is inconsistent, but if we follow your interpretation then he would have to be.

It is only inconsistent if we don't distinguish, as the Church does (as I have shown), between the beginning of justification, which is by faith and cannot be merited, and it's continuation, which requires works, and which Clement is incontrovertibly explicit about in chapter 34, where he states that those who do not do works cannot even look God in the face.

>>774215

>Also, he wasn't a bishop. If you read the shepherd of Herman's you'll see that he was a transmitter of letters.

A single line concerning one of the functions of Clement's ministry, not his office, is not enough to erase the universal consensus among tradition of his office as the Bishop of Rome, even if not his place in the line of succession. That's just bad historiography.

>Even John Calvin and Martin Luther believed in the necessity of works

Sauce?

>>774226

Regarding Clement, he was told to send letters out and wasn't someone of authority. You say unanimous consensuses but the early church in fact contradicted with each other when talking about the succession of Roman bishops during the period prior to 150 ad.

And for source here's John Calvin

>I wish the reader to understand that as often as we mention Faith alone in this question, we are not thinking of a dead faith, which worketh not by love, but holding faith to be the only cause of justification. (Galatians 5:6; Romans 3:22.) It is therefore faith alone which justifies, and yet the faith which justifies is not alone: just as it is the heat alone of the sun which warms the earth, and yet in the sun it is not alone, because it is constantly conjoined with light.

Antidote to the council of Trent

And here's Martin Luther

>"If [good] works and love do not blossom forth, it is not genuine faith, the gospel has not gained a foothold, and Christ is not yet rightly known.”

>>774215

didn't luther say "a man could commit murder and fornication 1000 times every day, and still be saved if he had faith" or something like that? If that is true, then I fail to see how he could have thought you 'needed' works.

>>773076

>>774213

Let me take a crack at it.

>1 you believe that there is one mediator (and another co-mediator).

Revelation 6:8 KJV

>And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand.

The saints are clearly praying, so they must be aware of what's happening on Earth. What else would they be praying for? Therefore they are aware of our requests for intercession, therefore we should ask them to pray for us. It's really no different from asking your friends and family to pray for you.

>You believe that we must work for our salvation, and don't say you believe that you are justified by faith since you believe in baptismal regeneration.

On works and faith, see James 2. Here's an excerpt from the KJV:

>23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. 24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. 25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

On baptismal regeneration, 1 Peter 3:21 KJV

>The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

> 3 you re sacrifice Christ at every mass but use sophisty to hide it.

See this article on catholic.com: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/is-the-mass-a-true-sacrifice I'm not about to copy/paste the entire exchange.

>You follow man made tradition instead of God's word.

The Catholic Church has preserved and followed God's word for centuries. On the subject of "man made traditions," 2 Thessalonians 2:15 KJV

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

There's clearly more to Christianity than a collection of books. God gave us a Church to join and obey, founded on the seat of Peter which has been successively filled since the time of the apostles.

>And you think that priests can absolve sins.

John 20:21-23 KJV

<21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

>>774226

The whole idea of faith alone is that faith itself is all that's needed to reap the benefits of Christ's sacrifice, making you blameless and therefor justified. Not faith and baptism. Not faith and doing some charity, no - faith alone is the tool that causes justification. Faith and works justifying is not faith alone, but instead is precisely the Catholic position.

In Catholicism, Christ's sacrifice applies at baptism, removing all sins (including original sin) prior, and that's it - it doesn't get stored into your account allowing you to sin until Christ's sacrifice is all used up, which of course would never happen meaning you could fornicate and murder 1000 times a day and never use it up and still from a legal point of view be perfectly blameless in spite of your obvious actual impurity. No, you yourself - not legally what is about you - it actually, substantially made pure because of your baptism. However you are still fully capable of sin like normal and if you do, then you will just have to pay the wages of said sin as you normally would. It's entirely possible and feasible for you to be without sin - in fact I heard of one who was possessed by a demon who went a whole year and a half without committing even venial sin as part of the exorcism. This is why the avoidance of grave sin (ie. works) is necessary to be saved, under Catholicism the sin system was never invalidated by Christ's sacrifice - rather he got us a fresh start away from original sin - but it still operates like before.

>>774241

As I said, the contradiction was in order, whereas there was consent in regards to the actual office. You aren't going to convince anyone that a bishop wasn't a bishop just because he had the duty to evangelize with his epistles, as he did with the document in question. None of the his contemporaries saw this contradiction, ao why do you?

>>774241

This is just redefining faith to include works. if this were true, there would be no difference between Catholics in protestants. I think we all can appreciate the fact that a man who does no works would have no faith, but this is ridiculous, why are you squirming about? Your doctrine is that faith alone saves, if there was a man who did no works but truly did have the faith, he would be saved - that's it - that's all you have to say. It might be unrealistic, as there are no such men, but it is what would happen if there were such a man.

>>774270

What about dismas? Anyone who became saved on their deathbed

>>774271

>good theif

Jesus hadn't died yet, so the new testament promises were not enforced yet - they were still operating under old testament rules.

think about it - how is the good thief supposed to be baptized when Jesus hasn't even died yet?

>>774272

What? In the old and new testaments, your faith is what counts you righteous. What's your position in covenant theology?

>>774273

He isn't because baptism is a work, and is necessarily unrelated to salvation

>>774275

>He isn't because baptism is a work, and is necessarily unrelated to salvation

You said "what about dismas", because Catholics have a tough time answering how a man who has not been baptized could have been saved (which is impossible by catholic standards). My answer, was that Jesus hadn't even died yet - a christian baptism before Christianity even existed is quite silly. Baptism applies Christ's sacrifice, but he hadn't been sacrificed yet - and this is true for both protestant and Catholics - so what would even apply? Therefor logically speaking, , they must have still been operating under old testament rules in which it is perfectly possible for the thief to be saved - and he wouldn't have needed to be baptized.

and i'm not sure what you mean by your first point. To my knowledge the thief was likely a jew no? So I see no reason why there would be an issue of faith.

in other words, the good thief poses no problem for Catholicism.

>>774278

*sry christ's sacrifice justifying us is true for both protestants and catholics, not baptism

>>774278

My first point is in reference to salvation in the OT. It seems you hold to a doctrine that personal salvation BC was contingent on obedience to the law, but that's a mistake. Romans 4:3 (quoting Genesis 15:6) "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness."

>>774285

well, either way it doesn't matter - by asking Christ to remember him, his faith was shown through this work and it was accounted to him as righteousness under old testament standards, not new testament standards.

>>772673

Why hate Mexicans? Genuinely curious as I thought they were devout Catholics.

>>774355

Mesoamerican Christianity is like Christianity in Haiti - Batshit crazy.

>>772660

>RCCs/Orthos/Anglicans/Luthers are not allowed in this thread

Yes we are, this is a open forum.

>>774278

Lmao Jesus and his followers were already baptising people

Seems like they are too pussified to act on faith and not by sight. If you need to erect an idol in order for you to "feel more empowered to worship God"…. then you're not doing it right.

Catholicism per se is a human development of 2000 years. Of course It has problems. It had them since the year 34 aD. One of the main problems I perceive is that It calls itself catholic. Well. No. I refuse that label. You are either a follower of Christ or not. There's only one 'Good News' only one Gospel only one Christ. Who defines who is right? Well, if you believe in the Holy Spirit and in the apostolic sucession then you only have two options and it's either catholic or orthodox. But at the end refuse to put yourself any label before Christ. I refuse to call myself catholic.

>>774625

I must add that some catholics give traditions and forms too much importance without acknowledging the real importance of these things. This is a risk and makes me uncomfortable. But this only makes me understand that the gate is really really narrow. They are carnals. Creating new interpretations of the gospel just to remove the magnificient human culture built on Christ is a tremendous mistake. Because those errors are and always will be present. With the added risk that now anyone can bend the gospel at their own interest.