/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

The broad swath of Protestantism is spiritual junk food.

Tastes real good, but will destroy you.

>>787724

But, OP, that isn't real Christianity.

It's not real Christianity until you get up on stage with your lesbian pastor and rock out to "It's Sunday" on the loud speakers.

>>787724

Is that Evangelical or Pentecostal? Can you give a specific denom?

>>787735

Pentecostals are a type of Evangelical alongside Baptists and Methodists and Non-Denominationals (who are really just Baptists or Pentecostals without the name attached).

We know, we're on top of it

>>787737

not quite

Most pentecostalism doesn't fall under evangelicalism. I would argue that no pentecostals fit the historic definition of evangelical personally.

Methodist and baptist are denominations, non-denoms are without such an association. You can be charismatic while baptist, methodist, non-denom.

All of these are protestant.

Pentecostals are a division of all charismaticism. I'd like to point out that the single largest group of charismatics is Catholic charismatics.

>>787724

At this point, anything beyond independent bible study has lost almost all value. If it ever had any to begin with.

>>787740

I think definitions can somewhat vary on Evangelicalism but for me it's any group that emphasizes personal experience with God. Baptists and Methodists are not single denominations, but many different denominations which share a similar theology and history which include being Evangelicals. Pentecostalism sprang out of the Methodist/Weslyean movements in the late 19th and early 20th century as a new interpretation of an individual's relationship with the Holy Spirit and therefore can be classified under the Evangelical type. Pentecostals tend to fall under the Charismatic type, while often Baptists fall under the Fundamentalists type. Non-denominationals are usually either charismatic or fundamentalists and usually hold to similar theological positions as Baptists and Pentecostals. Of course I am generalizing, and there is a lot more to it. Like for example, there are charismatic Catholics and Anglicans. Are they too Evangelicals? I wouldn't say so because of their theology, but then again it's sorta hard to label especially with Catholics because being an Evangelical is, well, a Protestant thing, and particularity a low church Protestant thing. Then of course we get into the issue of Oneness Pentecostals which make up around 25% of all Pentecostal groups. Should we even consider them Christians? Because in every other respect they are Evangelicals but they hold to Modalism. So are they cults? But then again, Mormonism in some ways sprang out of the early Evangelical tradition in the awakenings and it is consensus that they are not Christians. But then again, Oneness Pentecostals and Mormons are still very different. But I guess in our world we can't always fit everyone or everything into neat little boxes. This happens a lot with religious groups like, for example, Messianic Jews. Are they Jews, or are they Christians? If Christian, are they Protestant Evangelicals because they too rose out of the same and hold to a lot of the same theology. Humans are complex my friend so maybe it's not a simple answer.

>>787745

Evangelical is a term with it's origins in the Reformation era, not the same as fundamentalist

>>787746

Evangelical Catholic was simply a term early Lutherans called themselves, but there is a disconnect between them and actual Evangelicalism which is a distinct movement within Protestantism.

Every wing of the Church has something that makes me cringe a bit tbh. Some Evangelicals have these emotive charismatics and tacky commercialism about them..Some Catholics sperg out on speaking Latin and reciting canon law (in Latin). Some Orthodox are hung up on their earthbound culture more than the gospel (meanwhile, your priests look scary. Christ told us to be lights of the world, but Orthodox priests think they're supposed to signal "death" to the world.. but that doesn't mean DARK. Light is the actual death to the world. By going dark you're just reflecting the world. I don't get it… since otherwise liturgical vestments are so beautiful). If it wasn't for Christ himself, I'd be completely cynical about the images the church sends out sometimes.

Those three above I think have some legitimacy in the broadest terms, so I'm trying to say this with some love. I'm not even mentioning the cults, faggot mainliners, and various oddballs. There's no hope there.

>>787815

Cathodox were right, american prots have no reverence or substance in their churches. Catholics were right, prots reject the pope to become their own popes, so they can bind and unbind according to their own whims ( """"interpretation through the holy spirit"""""). America was a huge, huge mistake.

>>787815

The lyrics of contemporary christian music are always undoctrinal which is the underlying problem along with its core appeal aimed at pleasing man instead of glorifying God.

>>787822

Rent free

>>787945

Didnt want debate lmao, just doing a bit of a reflection

yall baptists are too far gone lol

>>787740

>>787737

>>787745

>>787746

>>787747

Here in Eastern Europe, we call them neo-protestants.

>>788012

You mean how you let the traditions of Luther run yours?

>>788024

And yet Cathodox also states they follow the bible. The traditions in question are the solas (mostly scriptura and fide) that never were until Luther (pbuh) chimped out and winnie the poohed everything up for everyone.

>>788024

The Bible is a product of tradition so tradition runs your church too.

>>788024

thousands of people claim to follow the bible and come to differing conclusions. The holy spirit cant be a schizo.

>>788024

>we follow the bible

>thousands upon thousands, no, a legion of protestant sects later

obviously, this means quite different things to different people. endless talmudization of the scripture.

>>788024

Not only this, Luther and the whole reformation was entirely premised on restoring the correct Christian practice from the introduction of aberrant theology. They appealed largely to tradition, just rightly as secondary to scripture.

>>788035

This argument doesn't work for catholics either, there's wide debate about a million topics there as well.

Everyone is either correct or not on any issue, regardless of affiliation. Our job is to compare it to scripture like the Berean jews.

>>788050

>Not only this, Luther and the whole reformation was entirely premised on restoring the correct Christian practice from the introduction of aberrant theology

They did an incredibly poor job, as evidenced by even a casual glance at the historical record.

> They appealed largely to tradition

and one of their first failures, was to attack the Eucharist, of which St. Paul claims one can damn themselves to Hell by partaking of without belief in.

>This argument doesn't work for catholics either, there's wide debate about a million topics there as well.

No, we have the Pope. Anything the Pope signs off of, officially, ex cathedra, is considered infallible. That's the entire point of the Pope.

>Our job is to compare it to scripture like the Berean jews.

the Berean jews didn't even have the New Testament, what you are asking for is to forsake the Church's true interpretation of the Old Testament (a pre-figurement and type of the New Testament; strictly in the sense of Christ and His Teachings) and take it all literally on its own

You are a Judiazer.

>>788053

ok kid

nice assertions

>>788054

If you throw out the Church's interpretation of the Old Testament, you invite Judiazing. This is a logical statement.

We have over 500+ years of people opening the scriptures and coming up with weirdo theology. Look up the Adamites, who believed because they were saved they could be naked and live in the woods. There are countless examples of lunacy like this.

>>788056

What do you think judaizing means?

Do you just mean you're liable to any heresy?

How did you identify that he's a judaizer?

>>788056

>everyone who disagrees with me is equally guilty of every other heresy

>>788057

>What do you think judaizing means?

To contaminate authentic Christian doctrine and theology with either old Mosaic Jewish traditions (superceded by Christian ones) or create entirely new ones based off of misreadings.

You know, like saying polygamy is acceptable because of how the Tribal Jews lived in Genesis.

>How did you identify that he's a judaizer?

definition I just gave above. the more obvious examples are people teaching circumcision. the ones you actually need to look up are nutsos like the Adamites, or any other number of heretical sects

>>788058

You're putting words in my mouth, I do not accuse the Orthodox of Judaizing; it's a notorious issue with Protestants.

>>788060

Ok, you mean heretic not judaizer.

Judaizer only refers to one who would require keeping Jewish customs in the new covenant, like circumcision. The idea is to confirm with mosaic law after Christ.

>>788060

(you)

>>787724

>Do you think the early Christians were doing this when they gathered for the Eucharist?

Do you think they gathered in large comfy brick buildings with aircon and carpet?

>>788046

>2 Timothy 3:16-17

<All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

This says nothing of Sola Scriptura (i.e. the Bible is THE ONLY AUTHORITY). In fact, at the beginning (the introduction) of the gospel of John, if I'm not mistaken, we read that Christ said things not recorded in the Bible.

>sola fide

<What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. 18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder. 20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]? 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,”[e] and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone. 25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

t.James

>>788046

>Yes, people can come to differing conclusions based on the Bible if they are guided by their own desires instead of His. Catholics, for example, read their traditions into its verses despite them not being written there.

It's always the same with the other denoms as well. They always say that when confronted with this fact that nobody agrees on anything, they always say that everybody else is looking at the bible with biased eyes.

>>788024

>What part of "we follow the Bible" is so hard to understand? Luther didn't make up a bunch of new traditions to follow, he just looked at what the Bible tells us to do.

Which is in itself a belief that is extra biblical nor sufficiently justified through the Bible alone. How do you choose which portions of the bible to omit or include? How do you settle conflicts of interpretation? The various splintering of denominations is proof that sola scriptura is incoherent and has lead to absurd theology. 'Following the Bible' means nothing if you interpret it however you wish in alignment with whatever biases you have.

>>788046

>Yes, people can come to differing conclusions based on the Bible if they are guided by their own desires instead of His.

t. schizo

>>788093

The prot mainliners that believe in fag marriage and women pastors also believe they are guided by the Holy Spirit when they read the Bible.

The New Agers believe the same thing when they personally interpret the Bible.

So who is right? You? The mainliners? The New Agers?

>>788095

Yeah, but thats like, your personal interpretation man.

My personal interpretation is clearly better than yours.

>>788097

That's the role of hermeneutics

The truth is determined based on solid principles of biblical interpretation. You wouldn't allege that catholic doctrine is arrived because someone in authority just decrees their opinion on it, right?

>>788098

What do papists have to do with anything? They aren't saved because they believe in works based salvation. As long as I believe that Jesus can save me, I can sin as much as I want, and you can too!

>>787734

BASED!

>>788100

no memes, are you possessed? What compels you to false flag as a protestant like that?

It's not even good bait, this is actual schizo behavior

>>788107

Hey man, just because you don't follow whats written in the bible doesn't give you the right to call me mean names.

>>788123

Please point out the error or relinquish your assumed moral high ground and take your caning like a man.

>>788107

Don't be surprised when D&C shills D&C

>>788084

Catholics don't believe that works (alone) saves them. First you must believe, yes, but then just believing without doing any good works is dead faith. As St. James pointed out:

> You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]? 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.

>... As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

>>788296

Is this accurate for the Catholic?

>>788296

Not Catholic, but Sacraments are Sacraments.

This is like saying baptism(or to a non-sacramental view, neo-protestant Sinner prayers) is a work, for prots.

>>788360

You've contradicted yourself by admitting a sacrament is still an action. I'm not denying that it's terribly significant.

If it's an action, then we can only conclude by the law of non-contradiction that such participation can not be a part of becoming saved based on Ephesians 2.

The only consistent answer is justification by faith alone, as Paul makes supremely evident in his Epistles.

You can have good works before you're saved, and you should assuredly have good works after you're saved. The point is that these can not redeem you from the guilt of sin. This is the Christian gospel.

>>788362

Let me clarify participation in the sacrament is an action. A sacrament is a noun.

I was also saying that "work" isn't a metaphysical term, if that's where we we're mixed up.

>>788366

You're not understanding our argument. Are you reading these posts?

The contradiction lies here:

>some of them do say it's (participation in a sacrament) a work. It's ludicrous.

>Participation in a sacrament is an action

"Work" and "action" are synonymous for our purposes in considering Ephesians 2:9. I've provided the concordance definition that says so, this isn't a novel idea. Are you intending to argue that work means something else? On what grounds?

>>788371

>He is not saying that you don't have to keep the commandments (baptism, as an example) after you receive this faith.

And neither are we. Please read more carefully.

You could stand being slower to speak like the Bible commends before name-calling.

>>788374

Yes. What's the issue?

In the inverse, how can you, presuming you're a Catholic, justify the Bible speaking of salvation in the past tense at all? That seems to be the very notion you're passionately arguing against.

>>788377

Ok. I think that's a deficient understanding of sanctification.

How do you answer the main issue of our discussion, that the sacraments can't play a part in salvation given Eph 2?

>>788379

My problem is I don't see the Sunday obligation mentioned in the Bible anywhere.

>>788381

I don't want to get into sanctification. This is generally what I think: https://www.gotquestions.org/sanctification.html

More obviously, salvation is spoken of in the past tense because it has already happened. If you have faith, you are saved.

It sounds like you're giving an arminian answer, not a Catholic one. It is Catholic doctrine that you must be baptized in order to then be saved.

>>788389

Right, you're affirming that Catholic doctrine teaches baptism as a necessary deeds prior to salvation. Correct?

>>788389

>If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that … without them or without the desire of them . . . men obtain from God the grace of justification, let him be anathema

Without the sacraments, you cannot be justified

>>788394

>>788393

>>788396

>>788397

I understand that Catholic doctrine holds exceptions, which I think amount to contradictions, but teach sacraments normatively as a necessary step in order to be saved.

Is this your view or not.

>>788399

>I understand that Catholic doctrine holds exceptions, which I think amount to contradictions

It is not a contradiction, one can look at St. Dismas as someone who was saved (because Christ literally told him he was) without sacraments in the scriptures. We can only accept the Church teaching on this point, that there may be cases of invincible ignorance where the saved may not necessarily be saved the rest of us are.

And as Christ Himself tells us, He has other sheep.

>>788402

How do you reconcile this view of the normative means of salvation in Catholic doctrine with Ephesians 2:9?

You've conceded that such participation in sacraments is an action. How could it be related to your salvation without contradicting scripture?

>>788407

Ok I think I see where I was misunderstanding. It is not your claim that baptism precedes salvation.

How did you conclude that the relevant passage only speaks to a pre-convert? Do you think that you can be saved via works after conversion?

>>788415

That doesn't really address the question.

Why isn't the trust in taking the Eucharist as salvific in contradiction with Ephesians 2:9, for the christian?

>>788418

How did you conclude that

>>788423

Expound

>>788430

Yes, the Christian should do those things. This is again stated in chapter 4.

How does this illuminate the conclusion you reached that the prohibition against trusting in works only applies to the unconverted? I'm asking for a hermeneutical answer.

>>788447

So there's nothing intrinsic in Ephesians 2 that made you reach your conclusion, but you're attempting to fit this in with a doctrine you find elsewhere. That is a valid line of reasoning.

You reconcile James 2 "a man is justified by works" and Ephesians 2 "through faith, not of works" by identifying several justifications. Is that accurate?